long-term unimportant but important-now question on elected seats

[Neville A. Cross]

El 2014-10-03 13:23, Paul W. Frields escribió:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:09:20PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 21:02 +0200, Haïkel wrote:
>> > 2014-10-03 20:05 GMT+02:00 Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I think election for 1 seat with it known that the runner up gets the second
>> > > seat. The standard method of voting doesn't work well for this (as it is
>> > > really meant for single seat/multiple candidates) but I believe it has been
>> > > used for this by us in the past like that for other groups.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Smooge suggestion works for me !
>> 
>> +1
> 
> Makes sense to me too.

The way it worked was to avoid the whole board full of new people. With 
the new proposal I don't see that as an issue. I also agree with the 
idea of the runner up getting the second chair. It is just simple.

Neville