Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:22 AM Robie Basak wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:14:06AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > > Do you have evidence that has actually happened to anyone in this > > case? I was able to vote quite easily, and it seems (from your ML > > comments) that both Christian and yourself were as well, and Christian > > provided explicit steps earlier in this email thread. > > The low turnout so far suggests that there might be a problem. I've > additionally had one piece of feedback ending in "...so I gave up. Maybe > others did too"[1]. > > > Can you clarify what will happen at the announced end of the election > > tomorrow? Will the election end, or will you extend it? What is the > > criteria you will use to decide to extend or adjust the election? > > What's the next steps if the election is extended? > > I have yet to decide. Feedback from others appreciated. > > One thing I might try to do whatever you decide to do, my feedback is that you should decide it and announce it, with specific details, before the previously-stated end of the election. If you feel the election process must change, I personally trust you to make a good decision on what new rules/procedures need to be adjusted for this election (but as previously stated I also pretty strongly feel that the election should end at its previously stated end date). After the modified election rules/process are announced, including a new end date (if applicable), I suggest not making any more changes. > is arrange a mailshot directly myself - > perhaps using my @canonical.com address - since I think that might get > through to Gmail users OK. This would be just to alert the electorate to > the existing posts to ubuntu-devel-announce@ and ubuntu-devel@. I could > just provide archive links. I can't differentiate between people who > have voted and people who have not, so this would have to go to everyone > I have down as eligible (for whom I have a valid address). > > Robie > > [1] With my help in identifying the correct alias this person reports > they have now voted, so that's good. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:14:06AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > Do you have evidence that has actually happened to anyone in this > case? I was able to vote quite easily, and it seems (from your ML > comments) that both Christian and yourself were as well, and Christian > provided explicit steps earlier in this email thread. The low turnout so far suggests that there might be a problem. I've additionally had one piece of feedback ending in "...so I gave up. Maybe others did too"[1]. > Can you clarify what will happen at the announced end of the election > tomorrow? Will the election end, or will you extend it? What is the > criteria you will use to decide to extend or adjust the election? > What's the next steps if the election is extended? I have yet to decide. Feedback from others appreciated. One thing I might try to do is arrange a mailshot directly myself - perhaps using my @canonical.com address - since I think that might get through to Gmail users OK. This would be just to alert the electorate to the existing posts to ubuntu-devel-announce@ and ubuntu-devel@. I could just provide archive links. I can't differentiate between people who have voted and people who have not, so this would have to go to everyone I have down as eligible (for whom I have a valid address). Robie [1] With my help in identifying the correct alias this person reports they have now voted, so that's good. signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
Hi, On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:15 AM Dan Streetman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 9:45 AM Robie Basak wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 09:19:31AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > > > For example, in this situation; carrying out an election really > > > shouldn't be an exceptional event. > > > > Normally it isn't. Previous elections have run smoothly and with no > > issues that I'm aware of. > > > > However we now have an interaction between the following exceptional > > situations, none of which were predicted: > > > > 1) The sudden apparent inability to send out announcements in the usual > > way. > > > > 2) The sudden (for us) change in CIVS to require email pre-approval. > > > > 3) Our existing email-gathering system means that people now don't > > necessarily know their own ballot email alias and figuring that out is > > particularly difficult. > > > > This is exceptional and requires exceptional consideration. Nothing we > > might have had in rules or policies previously could reasonably have > > predicted this. > > > > You seem to be suggesting that the current situation demonstrates that > > the existing documentation, process or policy around running a DMB > > election is somehow inadequate. But since this exceptional situation > > couldn't reasonably have been accommodated in hindsight, I don't think > > this is the case. > > > > > My feedback would be that this election should stick to the process > > > already in place at the start of the election. There should be no > > > changes to the process while the election is ongoing. If you think the > > > election process should change, that should be discussed, agreed on, > > > and documented. Then the next election can use the new process. > > > > Thank you for your feedback. > > > > > Can you imagine if a government decided to change the election process > > > during an election? > > > > For a fair comparison, you'd have to imagine what would happen if during > > a government election it turned out that most of the electorate found > > themselves unable to receive a ballot and therefore couldn't vote. > > Do you have evidence that has actually happened to anyone in this > case? I was able to vote quite easily, and it seems (from your ML > comments) that both Christian and yourself were as well, and Christian > provided explicit steps earlier in this email thread. I wasn't able to vote. I tried a few different emails and the system wouldn't recognize any, and I gave up on that day and forgot about it, until this thread was woken up. Of course, the one email I didn't try was the correct one, but having to pick an email, request a token, wait, use token, and then nothing, was too cumbersome that day and I gave up after 3 attempts. Today I talked with Robie, and he told me the correct email to use, and I was able to vote. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 9:45 AM Robie Basak wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 09:19:31AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > > For example, in this situation; carrying out an election really > > shouldn't be an exceptional event. > > Normally it isn't. Previous elections have run smoothly and with no > issues that I'm aware of. > > However we now have an interaction between the following exceptional > situations, none of which were predicted: > > 1) The sudden apparent inability to send out announcements in the usual > way. > > 2) The sudden (for us) change in CIVS to require email pre-approval. > > 3) Our existing email-gathering system means that people now don't > necessarily know their own ballot email alias and figuring that out is > particularly difficult. > > This is exceptional and requires exceptional consideration. Nothing we > might have had in rules or policies previously could reasonably have > predicted this. > > You seem to be suggesting that the current situation demonstrates that > the existing documentation, process or policy around running a DMB > election is somehow inadequate. But since this exceptional situation > couldn't reasonably have been accommodated in hindsight, I don't think > this is the case. > > > My feedback would be that this election should stick to the process > > already in place at the start of the election. There should be no > > changes to the process while the election is ongoing. If you think the > > election process should change, that should be discussed, agreed on, > > and documented. Then the next election can use the new process. > > Thank you for your feedback. > > > Can you imagine if a government decided to change the election process > > during an election? > > For a fair comparison, you'd have to imagine what would happen if during > a government election it turned out that most of the electorate found > themselves unable to receive a ballot and therefore couldn't vote. Do you have evidence that has actually happened to anyone in this case? I was able to vote quite easily, and it seems (from your ML comments) that both Christian and yourself were as well, and Christian provided explicit steps earlier in this email thread. Can you clarify what will happen at the announced end of the election tomorrow? Will the election end, or will you extend it? What is the criteria you will use to decide to extend or adjust the election? What's the next steps if the election is extended? -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 09:19:31AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > For example, in this situation; carrying out an election really > shouldn't be an exceptional event. Normally it isn't. Previous elections have run smoothly and with no issues that I'm aware of. However we now have an interaction between the following exceptional situations, none of which were predicted: 1) The sudden apparent inability to send out announcements in the usual way. 2) The sudden (for us) change in CIVS to require email pre-approval. 3) Our existing email-gathering system means that people now don't necessarily know their own ballot email alias and figuring that out is particularly difficult. This is exceptional and requires exceptional consideration. Nothing we might have had in rules or policies previously could reasonably have predicted this. You seem to be suggesting that the current situation demonstrates that the existing documentation, process or policy around running a DMB election is somehow inadequate. But since this exceptional situation couldn't reasonably have been accommodated in hindsight, I don't think this is the case. > My feedback would be that this election should stick to the process > already in place at the start of the election. There should be no > changes to the process while the election is ongoing. If you think the > election process should change, that should be discussed, agreed on, > and documented. Then the next election can use the new process. Thank you for your feedback. > Can you imagine if a government decided to change the election process > during an election? For a fair comparison, you'd have to imagine what would happen if during a government election it turned out that most of the electorate found themselves unable to receive a ballot and therefore couldn't vote. signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:57 AM Robie Basak wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 06:14:27AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > > Where are the rules/policies written down about how elections should > > be handled? > > The first time I ran an election I couldn't find much documentation at > all, so I tried to follow what I could see of what had been done before, > fixed up the voter email gathering code, and documented everything at: > > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Running_a_DMB_election > > Note though that I documented what I considered to be best practice, > based on what had been done before as well as feedback. It's not a rule > or policy as such. Nor do I think it's necessary to be that. > > This time I'm mostly following that documentation, adapting as I think > appropriate for the current situation (eg. three seats vacated, not > because their terms expired, etc, required changes in wording). > > > We should have the process written down somewhere so there > > is not ambiguity like this. > > In this case I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate to > blindly follow a written rule or policy. > > The goal is to ensure that everyone considers the outcome to be fair and > appropriate. It's not possible to have a written policy to cover every > possible exceptional case. This situation is exceptional, and may > warrant taking some exceptional action to ensure that we don't > inappropriately exclude anyone. Ideally, if we did decide to handle > something differently as an exception, It really concerns me that so many of our processes are so ad-hoc. Blindly following rules is obviously bad, but it's equally bad to have to discuss every action and gain consensus. We shouldn't have to carry on a discussion every time something unexpected comes up, and we should have someone who is willing (and empowered) to handle minor administrative decisions. I don't think most people actually care about process administrivia, and IMHO introducting too much administriva only serves to turn people off of contributing. For example, in this situation; carrying out an election really shouldn't be an exceptional event. The rules/policies for how to do that should be clearly documented and one person should be able to carry out the election without needing to guess about things, or needing to have a discussion about how the election process should be modified while the election is going on. > we would all be unanimous about > the appropriateness of doing that. This is why I'm asking for feedback > here. My feedback would be that this election should stick to the process already in place at the start of the election. There should be no changes to the process while the election is ongoing. If you think the election process should change, that should be discussed, agreed on, and documented. Then the next election can use the new process. Can you imagine if a government decided to change the election process during an election? > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 06:17:23AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:14 AM Dan Streetman wrote: > > Also, I think we should probably remove ubuntu-devel-announce from > > this discussion? > > Agreed. I mistakenly included it in my previous reply and cancelled the > post there after it was held for moderation. I've now cut down the Cc: > list. I think it's fine to limit the discussion to ubuntu-devel@ as all > nominees and the electorate are expected to be in here. Nonwithstanding > deliverability problems, but I don't expect that to affect any other > Ubuntu lists differently. > > Robie -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 06:14:27AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > Where are the rules/policies written down about how elections should > be handled? The first time I ran an election I couldn't find much documentation at all, so I tried to follow what I could see of what had been done before, fixed up the voter email gathering code, and documented everything at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Running_a_DMB_election Note though that I documented what I considered to be best practice, based on what had been done before as well as feedback. It's not a rule or policy as such. Nor do I think it's necessary to be that. This time I'm mostly following that documentation, adapting as I think appropriate for the current situation (eg. three seats vacated, not because their terms expired, etc, required changes in wording). > We should have the process written down somewhere so there > is not ambiguity like this. In this case I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate to blindly follow a written rule or policy. The goal is to ensure that everyone considers the outcome to be fair and appropriate. It's not possible to have a written policy to cover every possible exceptional case. This situation is exceptional, and may warrant taking some exceptional action to ensure that we don't inappropriately exclude anyone. Ideally, if we did decide to handle something differently as an exception, we would all be unanimous about the appropriateness of doing that. This is why I'm asking for feedback here. On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 06:17:23AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:14 AM Dan Streetman wrote: > Also, I think we should probably remove ubuntu-devel-announce from > this discussion? Agreed. I mistakenly included it in my previous reply and cancelled the post there after it was held for moderation. I've now cut down the Cc: list. I think it's fine to limit the discussion to ubuntu-devel@ as all nominees and the electorate are expected to be in here. Nonwithstanding deliverability problems, but I don't expect that to affect any other Ubuntu lists differently. Robie signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Second Jammy Jellyfish test rebuild
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:02 AM Graham Inggs wrote: > > Hi Christian > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 08:19, Christian Ehrhardt > wrote: > > - Dns-root-data is actually an issue in ldns fixed in jammy-proposed > ldns migrated, so I retried dns-root-data > > > - postgresql-14 was broken by llvm-14, a fix is uploaded to jammy and > > built fine (https://launchpad.net/bugs/1966319) > llvm-toolchain-14 migrated, so I retried postgresql-14 https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/postgresql-14/14.2-1ubuntu1 in proposed fixes the FTBFS with llvm 14. > > > - python-tempita was broken by python-3.10, not yet fixed but we know a way > not doing anything here yet https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-tempita/0.5.2-6ubuntu1 is in proposed and fixes the FTBFS (and enables tests, that were not running before) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Second Jammy Jellyfish test rebuild
Hi Christian On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 at 08:19, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > - Dns-root-data is actually an issue in ldns fixed in jammy-proposed ldns migrated, so I retried dns-root-data > - postgresql-14 was broken by llvm-14, a fix is uploaded to jammy and > built fine (https://launchpad.net/bugs/1966319) llvm-toolchain-14 migrated, so I retried postgresql-14 > - python-tempita was broken by python-3.10, not yet fixed but we know a way not doing anything here yet > - samba shows to build fine in the latter 0ubuntu4 samba should move to the superseded section once it migrates > - Mysql is one of the !log cases this seems to have been cleared by my previous retries > - Ruby-rexml is fixed for a few days already before the report was sent. > Please consider rebuilding all orange ruby* packages (reference LP: > #1966201). retrying... Regards Graham -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:14 AM Dan Streetman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:02 AM Robie Basak wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > > If you happen to activate the "wrong" email you'll just see: > > > > > > ``` > > > Email address successfully activated. > > > ``` > > > > > > But if you activate the right one (just as Robie said, usually the > > > @ubuntu.com one) you'd in the Web UI of CIVS right after clicking > > > "Complete activation" see this: > > > > > > ``` > > > Email address successfully activated. > > > Pending poll invitations: > > > Ubuntu Developer Membership Board restaffing > > > ``` > > > > > > The latter line is a link leading you to your vote. > > > > Thank you Christian for detailing this. Hopefully this has helped others > > vote. > > > > So far the turnout is considerably lower than the previous election two > > years ago. Last time there were 54/173 votes cast at the time the poll > > closed. For the CIVS poll in progress I can't see who voted (or how) but > > the control page does show me the count. So far we have 23/174. > > > > We've had a couple of hurdles: > > > > 1) This extra opt-in step means that the electorate no longer get the > > poll request directly to their inbox. We're relying on them seeing the > > ubuntu-devel-announce@ notifications, or subsequent traffic to > > ubuntu-devel@. > > > > 2) Recently Gmail seems to have adjusted things which has caused > > deliverability problems to @gmail.com addresses (and presumably other > > addresses hosted by Google). IS has made some adjustments to try to > > help, but it's unclear to me if they worked because overnight I received > > ~373 "unsubscribe" notifications to ubuntu-devel-owner@ all at once, > > predominantely relating to @gmail.com addresses. It seems likely to me > > that these are a result of the deliverability problems. So it's not > > clear to me that all of the electorate is actually even aware of the > > election. Of course there are surely many more ubuntu-devel@ subscribers > > than those eligible to vote, so the number of unsubscribes doesn't > > actually mean anything. > > > > I'd appreciate feedback on how to proceed. > > Where are the rules/policies written down about how elections should > be handled? We should have the process written down somewhere so there > is not ambiguity like this. Also, I think we should probably remove ubuntu-devel-announce from this discussion? > > > For example, together with > > some specific action to draw the attention of the electorate, I could > > extend the voting period if that would be considered helpful. > > > > On the other hand, it would be helpful to get the replacement DMB > > members resolved as soon as possible. Perhaps the current vote count can > > be considered enough to not make a big difference to the outcome, given > > that there's no particular reason for bias in those that might not have > > received the announcement? > > > > Robie > > -- > > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > > ubuntu-devel-disc...@lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 6:02 AM Robie Basak wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > If you happen to activate the "wrong" email you'll just see: > > > > ``` > > Email address successfully activated. > > ``` > > > > But if you activate the right one (just as Robie said, usually the > > @ubuntu.com one) you'd in the Web UI of CIVS right after clicking > > "Complete activation" see this: > > > > ``` > > Email address successfully activated. > > Pending poll invitations: > > Ubuntu Developer Membership Board restaffing > > ``` > > > > The latter line is a link leading you to your vote. > > Thank you Christian for detailing this. Hopefully this has helped others > vote. > > So far the turnout is considerably lower than the previous election two > years ago. Last time there were 54/173 votes cast at the time the poll > closed. For the CIVS poll in progress I can't see who voted (or how) but > the control page does show me the count. So far we have 23/174. > > We've had a couple of hurdles: > > 1) This extra opt-in step means that the electorate no longer get the > poll request directly to their inbox. We're relying on them seeing the > ubuntu-devel-announce@ notifications, or subsequent traffic to > ubuntu-devel@. > > 2) Recently Gmail seems to have adjusted things which has caused > deliverability problems to @gmail.com addresses (and presumably other > addresses hosted by Google). IS has made some adjustments to try to > help, but it's unclear to me if they worked because overnight I received > ~373 "unsubscribe" notifications to ubuntu-devel-owner@ all at once, > predominantely relating to @gmail.com addresses. It seems likely to me > that these are a result of the deliverability problems. So it's not > clear to me that all of the electorate is actually even aware of the > election. Of course there are surely many more ubuntu-devel@ subscribers > than those eligible to vote, so the number of unsubscribes doesn't > actually mean anything. > > I'd appreciate feedback on how to proceed. Where are the rules/policies written down about how elections should be handled? We should have the process written down somewhere so there is not ambiguity like this. > For example, together with > some specific action to draw the attention of the electorate, I could > extend the voting period if that would be considered helpful. > > On the other hand, it would be helpful to get the replacement DMB > members resolved as soon as possible. Perhaps the current vote count can > be considered enough to not make a big difference to the outcome, given > that there's no particular reason for bias in those that might not have > received the announcement? > > Robie > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > ubuntu-devel-disc...@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Developer Membership Board restaffing
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:51:52PM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > If you happen to activate the "wrong" email you'll just see: > > ``` > Email address successfully activated. > ``` > > But if you activate the right one (just as Robie said, usually the > @ubuntu.com one) you'd in the Web UI of CIVS right after clicking > "Complete activation" see this: > > ``` > Email address successfully activated. > Pending poll invitations: > Ubuntu Developer Membership Board restaffing > ``` > > The latter line is a link leading you to your vote. Thank you Christian for detailing this. Hopefully this has helped others vote. So far the turnout is considerably lower than the previous election two years ago. Last time there were 54/173 votes cast at the time the poll closed. For the CIVS poll in progress I can't see who voted (or how) but the control page does show me the count. So far we have 23/174. We've had a couple of hurdles: 1) This extra opt-in step means that the electorate no longer get the poll request directly to their inbox. We're relying on them seeing the ubuntu-devel-announce@ notifications, or subsequent traffic to ubuntu-devel@. 2) Recently Gmail seems to have adjusted things which has caused deliverability problems to @gmail.com addresses (and presumably other addresses hosted by Google). IS has made some adjustments to try to help, but it's unclear to me if they worked because overnight I received ~373 "unsubscribe" notifications to ubuntu-devel-owner@ all at once, predominantely relating to @gmail.com addresses. It seems likely to me that these are a result of the deliverability problems. So it's not clear to me that all of the electorate is actually even aware of the election. Of course there are surely many more ubuntu-devel@ subscribers than those eligible to vote, so the number of unsubscribes doesn't actually mean anything. I'd appreciate feedback on how to proceed. For example, together with some specific action to draw the attention of the electorate, I could extend the voting period if that would be considered helpful. On the other hand, it would be helpful to get the replacement DMB members resolved as soon as possible. Perhaps the current vote count can be considered enough to not make a big difference to the outcome, given that there's no particular reason for bias in those that might not have received the announcement? Robie signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Ubuntu Technical Board Call For Nominations
Hi Torsten, On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 07:25:13PM +, Torsten Franz wrote: > [...] At the moment > there is one seat of the Technical Board vacant, which would have to be > filled. This seat will be re-elected with the other Technical Board seats at > the end of the year. It's unclear to me if you're asking for nominations for an election just for the one vacant seat, and that seat will be on a short term and will be up for re-election at the end of the year; or if you're asking for nominations now for an election for all seats on the TB, and that you'll be holding an election at the end of the year for all of them. In other words, my seat's term ends at the end of the year. Are you asking for nominations for that seat now (as well as the others)? Or just for the recently vacated seat? Thanks, Robie -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
