On 2016-10-11 01:43 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Anita Kuno <ante...@anteaya.info> wrote:
Instead of two week process, make it three:
Again as I replied to Ed's post, I think we can find options that fit in the
current timeframe.
Why do we need a week to nominate? Open it up a month before the election, and
close it a week before. Or open it for two days, and close it a week before. I
don’t understand why, other than procrastination, we need such a long period.
If you’re serious about serving, throw you hat into the ring.
-- Ed Leafe
To be honest with you I also questioned why the nomination period had to
be the length it did, until I was running elections. Turns out people's
lives, vacation, travel, all those meetings, are such that they need it
to be at least the length it is in order to run if they want to run. I
had an instance where someone posted their nomination 10 minutes prior
to the deadline. I pm'd them and asked, were you just being lazy or
what? Turns out their work schedule that week was such that the only
time they could take to compose their nomination and post it was just
before the deadline. So now I understand firsthand about why it has to
be at least that long of a period for nomination.
If you make the nomination period longer, you require a longer
commitment from the election officials. Officiating an election is a
commitment. The election is top priority at that time. Given the
expectation around officiating I personally don't think it is fair to
extend that expectation without it being an actual solution to an actual
problem.
I don't know what issue we would be fixing by changing the nomination
period.
Thanks,
Anita.
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
