On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 05:33 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote: > I would prefer the GPG signed method. > It seems like the best way to ensure that there isn't ballot stuffing > going on. Yes. The thing to realize is you don't *have* to check signatures right away. If we all vote with GPG signed emails, it can still serve as an audit trail should anyone want to check up on it later. Though I do agree a "Meritocracy, not democracy" philosophy. Having existing FESCo members appoint replacements is possibly a good way to do this. However there needs to be some kind of checks and balances. Perhaps the existing FESCo can nominate new members, and the community can confirm or veto. (Which still likely involves voting which makes me wonder if this would really be substantially different. Oh well.)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
