Sorry for this mail it was for another ML, please ignore it. rgds jan i.
On 3 January 2015 at 18:55, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi. > > While the nominations are running, I would like to give some thought to > how the vote should be. > > I assume people being nominated have been contacted by those nominating, > so we can assume they are up for election. If not it is important to know > if the nominees volunteer. > > For the vote, I would suggest a couple of things: > - ask the candidates to present, how they expect (no guarantees) to use > their AOO time and especially how they see a way out of our current > situation. > - If the "winning" candidate is less than 3 (binding) votes from the > second, we should run a second vote only between number 1 and 2 (maybe also > 3, depending on the scores). The reason being that other candidates makes > the comparison unfair. > > In my opinion a chair, who wants to be active, can only do so if he/she > has a high backing of the PMC group and the community at large. > > I am aware that the vote rules are set solely by the PMC, and the ASF > Bylaws; so please read this as a recommendation. > > rgds > jan i > > >
