On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:52:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > 2. The election begins [-nine-] {+six+} weeks before the leadership
>> > post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately.
>>
>> Is there any reason to reduce this time period? Having a buffer zone
>> of three weeks is useful for continuity and/or cases where the
>> nomination period must be extended (though it leads to a short lame
>> duck period).
>
>I agree. No reason was given AFAICS, so I propose:From AJ's original mail: ... >Likewise, all our other votes have only needed two weeks (or less in >the case of the recall votes) to resolve, so having an extra week for >DPL elections seems unnecessary. > >Reducing the DPL election period from 17% of the year to 11% seems >like a win to me. YMMV. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. [EMAIL PROTECTED] We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
