[FAmSCo] Transition to the new FAmSCo election guidelines

Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert at googlemail.com
Tue Apr 17 08:00:53 UTC 2012

Am Donnerstag, den 12.04.2012, 18:20 -0600 schrieb Neville A. Cross:
> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 19:55 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > OPTION 1:
> > Do as is written in the wiki: 7 seats were up for the F17 and earlier
> > elections, and the F18 election will have 3 seats up for vote. The 3
> > seats that will be up for election will be the bottom 3 vote-getters
> > from the F17 election.  The 4 seats not up for election in the F18
> > election, will be up for election in F19.
> > 
> > Rationale:
> >       * People agreed to this change.
> >       * Shift happens ASAP.
> > 
> > Downsides:
> >       * Two of the three people affected were not present in the
> >         meeting.
> >       * People were elected under the old rules and for a 12 months
> >         cycle.
> > 
> > 
> <skip>
> I was not in the meeting. I am not sure if I am affected, but I think
> this is the best option. 

Hi Neville, 

don't worry, you are not affected.

> Even if this affect me, I strongly support this option.

Thanks. I think a quick transition is important. Not only because it
could help to avoid the removal of a FAmSCo member but because we will
open the FAmSCo elections to many new contributors.

> If we dot agree, and voluntaries are needed, you can count on me.

But I and the voters don't want to count you in. :)

You were elected, many people trust and support you and that's why I
think you should *not* step down. I think the only reason to step down
is if you cannot fulfill your duties, e.g. because of personal personal
problems of the lack of time.

IHMO here we see that option 4, (having people step down voluntarily)
doesn't work. If people should step down, it should be the people that
got the least votes and that's exactly what options 1-3 suggest.

Kind regards,

More information about the famsco mailing list