On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:46:50AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> the election officials. You can send them an e-mail
Correct address is (elections at gentoo dot org)
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
06-02-2010, 07:18 AM
Mike Frysinger
Council 201006 elections
On Monday, May 31, 2010 22:46:50 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Here are the details for the Council 201006 elections:
>
> * nominations: June 5th to 18th
> * voting: June 20th to July 3rd
funny, this isnt what the council page says at all
-mike
06-02-2010, 08:11 AM
Torsten Veller
Council 201006 elections
* Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
> On Monday, May 31, 2010 22:46:50 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > Here are the details for the Council 201006 elections:
> >
> > * nominations: June 5th to 18th
> > * voting: June 20th to July 3rd
>
> funny, this isnt what the council page says at all
| Nominations are allowed from July 1st 0000 UTC to July 31st 2359 UTC
| Voting is opened from August 1st 0000 UTC to August 31st 2359 UTC
| (from <http://council.gentoo.org>)
The dates shifted because a former council didn't made its full term
due to the 50% attendance clause. "The 'one year' is then reset from
that point." [0]
The current council's term started in July 2009. So the next Council
should start in July 2010.
The length of the periods were shortened in 2008 [1] when we had the
early election and last year's election was run within 2+2 weeks too.
I think the council page should be fixed. Do you agree?
On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 04:11:26 Torsten Veller wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
> > On Monday, May 31, 2010 22:46:50 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > > Here are the details for the Council 201006 elections:
> > > * nominations: June 5th to 18th
> > > * voting: June 20th to July 3rd
> >
> > funny, this isnt what the council page says at all
> >
> | Nominations are allowed from July 1st 0000 UTC to July 31st 2359 UTC
> | Voting is opened from August 1st 0000 UTC to August 31st 2359 UTC
> |
> | (from <http://council.gentoo.org>)
>
> The dates shifted because a former council didn't made its full term
> due to the 50% attendance clause. "The 'one year' is then reset from
> that point." [0]
yes, that is fairly obvious, but my point was to highlight the existence of
discrepancies rather than their background
> The length of the periods were shortened in 2008 [1] when we had the
> early election and last year's election was run within 2+2 weeks too.
as that e-mail notes, the shortened period was due to the forced re-run and
getting back on track quickly rather than making it the norm. personally i
dont see what's wrong with running a full month considering the weight of the
positions.
-mike
06-02-2010, 11:46 AM
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
Council 201006 elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02-06-2010 08:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 04:11:26 Torsten Veller wrote:
>> * Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
>>> On Monday, May 31, 2010 22:46:50 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>>> Here are the details for the Council 201006 elections:
>>>> * nominations: June 5th to 18th
>>>> * voting: June 20th to July 3rd
>>>
>>> funny, this isnt what the council page says at all
>>>
>> | Nominations are allowed from July 1st 0000 UTC to July 31st 2359 UTC
>> | Voting is opened from August 1st 0000 UTC to August 31st 2359 UTC
>> |
>> | (from <http://council.gentoo.org>)
>>
>> The dates shifted because a former council didn't made its full term
>> due to the 50% attendance clause. "The 'one year' is then reset from
>> that point." [0]
>
> yes, that is fairly obvious, but my point was to highlight the existence of
> discrepancies rather than their background
>
>> The length of the periods were shortened in 2008 [1] when we had the
>> early election and last year's election was run within 2+2 weeks too.
>
> as that e-mail notes, the shortened period was due to the forced re-run and
> getting back on track quickly rather than making it the norm. personally i
> dont see what's wrong with running a full month considering the weight of the
> positions.
Mike,
ever since we started the 2 + 2 weeks elections, no one has complained
to the election officials about the shortened period. Furthermore, the
officials started tracking the ballots evolution and in the last 2 years
or so, the majority of votes were casted in the first days of an
election, followed by a week or so with hardly any votes and a small
number of votes casted just before the election was closed.
As a member of the elections team and an election official for most
(all?) of the elections in the past 3 years, I think that returning to
the 1 + 1 month election would be a waste of time.
> -mike
- --
Regards,
Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 07:46:40 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 02-06-2010 08:39, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 04:11:26 Torsten Veller wrote:
> >> * Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
> >>> On Monday, May 31, 2010 22:46:50 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> >>>> Here are the details for the Council 201006 elections:
> >>>> * nominations: June 5th to 18th
> >>>> * voting: June 20th to July 3rd
> >>>
> >>> funny, this isnt what the council page says at all
> >>>
> >> | Nominations are allowed from July 1st 0000 UTC to July 31st 2359 UTC
> >> | Voting is opened from August 1st 0000 UTC to August 31st 2359 UTC
> >> |
> >> | (from <http://council.gentoo.org>)
> >>
> >> The dates shifted because a former council didn't made its full term
> >> due to the 50% attendance clause. "The 'one year' is then reset from
> >> that point." [0]
> >
> > yes, that is fairly obvious, but my point was to highlight the existence
> > of discrepancies rather than their background
> >
> >> The length of the periods were shortened in 2008 [1] when we had the
> >> early election and last year's election was run within 2+2 weeks too.
> >
> > as that e-mail notes, the shortened period was due to the forced re-run
> > and getting back on track quickly rather than making it the norm.
> > personally i dont see what's wrong with running a full month considering
> > the weight of the positions.
>
> ever since we started the 2 + 2 weeks elections, no one has complained
> to the election officials about the shortened period.
conversely, no one complained about the longer period either
> Furthermore, the
> officials started tracking the ballots evolution and in the last 2 years
> or so, the majority of votes were casted in the first days of an
> election, followed by a week or so with hardly any votes and a small
> number of votes casted just before the election was closed.
data does help a position
> As a member of the elections team and an election official for most
> (all?) of the elections in the past 3 years, I think that returning to
> the 1 + 1 month election would be a waste of time.
still doesnt change the fact that the documentation on the website does not
match what is occurring in practice
-mike
Council 201006 elections
