On Thu, 2018-06-14 at 23:50 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 03:57:36PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM Randy Barlow > > > Downside is that it would be possible (though I'd guess unlikely) > > > for > > > all of FESCo to suddenly change to 9 different people and there'd > > > be no > > > members who know the current state of things. We would also need > > > to do > > > something a little awkward to get into this state since we > > > currently > > > have staggered terms. > > > > The election structure was setup specifically to avoid this > > problem. > > The alternative solutions were all pretty poor. > > This seems to be a very theoretical problem because it would mean > that > we have nine times the number of new candidates that we have now and > everyone is so unsatisfied with FESCo that only new candidates will > be > elected. And if there is so deep dissatisfaction, a fresh start might > even be a good idea. Also there would still be other people around to > provide guidance or there is another problem. Theory will always become reality at some point. I think there is very good reasons to keep the staggered approach to electing FESCo members. Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/OO76XN4RMW4GRAWQ2TB26OR7G3GZ4X6X/
