If it is a University UG, should we insist on some kind basic continuity plan - for eg: A faculty advisor who will be a member?
Or, would that be discrimination? ~Joe On 13-Feb-08, at 7:15 PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote: > Mads Toftum wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:04:11PM +0900, Jim Grisanzio wrote: >> >>> (1) Core Contributor -- Nominated by a Core Contributor, three +1 >>> votes, >>> no -1 votes, duration within five days, only CCs can vote. >>> >> >> I can't really see much harm in letting Contributors nominate as >> well as >> long as you keep the 3 Core Contributor votes requirement. >> >>> (2) Contributor -- Self nominated or nominated by a Contributor >>> or Core >>> Contributor, no -1 votes, no minimum or maximum +1 votes, duration >>> within five days, only CCs can vote. >>> >>> >> This seems a bit odd to me. Effectively you can nominate yourself and >> slip under the radar if nobody hates you enough to vote no? > Well, if you put it that way ... :) > >> I think it >> would be more "balanced" if you changed this to mirror the >> procedure in >> (1) and just extended it to accept nominations/votes from >> Contributors. >> > Ok, that's a good suggestion to open it up a bit. > >> >>> (3) Project and/or User Group -- Proposal based on the new format >>> below, >>> one +1 vote, no -1 votes, duration within five days, only CCs can >>> vote. >>> >>> >> This one looks fine - getting many people to vote for user groups in >> places they've never heard of is probably too big of a requirement. >> > > I'm much less concerned about the Contributor and Core Contributor > voting, but we do need to make getting UGs easier and faster. So, > cool... > > Jim > > -- > Jim Grisanzio http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris > -- > > _______________________________________________ > advocacy-discuss mailing list > advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss
