On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 06:22 -0400, Sam Folk-Williams wrote: > To be consistent with other groups (Docs/Ambassadors, etc) you may want > to have people vote for these positions rather than appointing them. > Not sure about voting. Ambassadors and FESCo have only started to vote on their positions this past year after having a while to create a sense of what roles the elected body is supposed to perform. These positions are also different than FESCo and Ambassadors in that it isn't an election of a body of people -- it's an election to individual positions. This is the difference between elections for the city council and elections for sheriff, treasurer, and mayor. For these specialized positions you want someone who is familiar with the issues that will be facing them in that job as they will be the go-to person when problems crop up in those areas. Which isn't to say that voters couldn't do a good job of picking people with the right skills and knowledge here either. But I think we lack one other criteria for good elections: voters. Currently we only have 31 people listed in the sysadmin groups so it's somewhat silly to hold elections for seven positions at this point. I think a simple confirmation/discussion will better serve us at this time. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
