Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > >On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Santiago Gala wrote: > >>I'm ready to give +1 to people nominated which are missing them, but I >>could not find any posting telling if +1 are required, or are just to be >>considered a form of moral support. >> > >>Could anybody clarify? >> > >Personally: I do not care much for seconding - just that the person >accepts - simple voting is the true test in my personal opinion. And in a >crowd as vocal as this I trust that issues are raised in time to make sure >that seconding is non essential filtering mechanism. > >But that is a personal opinion - not the nessesarily shared by the voting >volunteers opinion of that of the board or pmc. > >So for next time 2003 - you have some options. > >1- No seconding needed - just acceptance. > I would support 1. My concern was because I had seen people with no +1, and I wanted every nominee having the opportunity to get voted. I felt like I was spoiling my "+1" by not using them. :)
I don't think veto is right. Vetoes should be handled in the ballot. I mean, I can argue someone is not the right person, but this should not automatically discard them. The nomination mechanism is already giving a filter on who will be proposed. The ability to veto could become a problem if/when there are fighting fractions in the nominating group. > >2- One seconding needed - and acceptance counts > as such too. >3- More than one needed. >4- None needed - except to override a veto.. >5. .... > > >Dw. > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
