On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 08:29:23PM +0100, Quim Gil wrote:
> Apart from Anne's initial (and well intentioned) comment, nobody else
> has objected by the fact of Vincent being a candidate at he same time as
> he is tied to the election commitee for the impossibility to delegate
> now. I guess Anne he
Apart from Anne's initial (and well intentioned) comment, nobody else
has objected by the fact of Vincent being a candidate at he same time as
he is tied to the election commitee for the impossibility to delegate
now. I guess Anne herself would accept Vincent as candidate even if he
can't leave the
Jeff,
On 11/16/05, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> something so fundamental to the process: Yes, people do run for election so
> that those they do not trust are not elected. Surprise? Not even remotely.
By itself, this is unsurprising. But coupled with:
1) The small number of people who
On 11/16/05, Andreas J. Guelzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, in the context of having a candidate being an essential part of
> the election committee, Dave Neary asked: "What ever happened to trust?"
>
> Apparently, in your own opinion, there are people in the foundation
> tahat are not trust
> Apparently, in your own opinion, there are people in the foundation tahat
> are not trusted by some (and who have run for election in the past).
(Which is not surprising for a community of our size or diversity.)
> So why should one trust a candidate who is also heavily involved in the
> runn
On Thu, 2005-17-11 at 14:53 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > I never said _you_ did. The exact words used were: "It's not about radical
> > things happening, it's about untrustworthy people being elected." see
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2005-October/msg00068.html
>
> One
> I never said _you_ did. The exact words used were: "It's not about radical
> things happening, it's about untrustworthy people being elected." see
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2005-October/msg00068.html
One of the reasons why we have elections is so that we can vote for peo
Hi,
Le mercredi 16 novembre 2005 à 12:12 +0100, Anne Østergaard a écrit :
> On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 11:28 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > On Wed, November 16, 2005 10:33, Quim Gil wrote:
> > > This would help disoriented new candidates (like myself) moving
> > > appropriately between silence and abus
On Wed, 2005-16-11 at 09:09 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 11/16/05, Andreas J. Guelzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-16-11 at 13:14 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> > >
> > > Quim Gil wrote:
> > > > Gosh, we are not the EU Parliament or the US Congress. Neither have we
> > > > 28 candidates
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 12:27 +0100, Quim Gil wrote:
> I didn't comment anything about Vincent's concerns about being a
> candidate and in the comittee as well because I saw clearly no problem
> with it.
>
> Gosh, we are not the EU Parliament or the US Congress. Neither have we
> 28 candidates t
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 08:39 +0100, Anne Østergaard wrote:
> Could we please have a full list of all the candidates who actually
> announced there candidacies for the GNOME Board of Directors within the
> time limit?
Hi Anne (and others),
For a number of reasons (totally unrelated to Jeff), the cu
On 11/16/05, Andreas J. Guelzow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-16-11 at 13:14 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> >
> > Quim Gil wrote:
> > > Gosh, we are not the EU Parliament or the US Congress. Neither have we
> > > 28 candidates to choose from. If we keep kicking off candidates for
> > > proc
On Wed, 2005-16-11 at 13:14 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
>
> Quim Gil wrote:
> > Gosh, we are not the EU Parliament or the US Congress. Neither have we
> > 28 candidates to choose from. If we keep kicking off candidates for
> > procedural reasons we will end up not needing to vote at all.
>
> Hear, h
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 14:04 +0200, Baris Cicek wrote:
> As a member of membership committee I can honestly say that Vincent's
> instant leaving membership committee would end up problems with
> elections as well. That must be the real reason that kept him in
> committee still.
If there is seriousl
Quim Gil wrote:
Gosh, we are not the EU Parliament or the US Congress. Neither have we
28 candidates to choose from. If we keep kicking off candidates for
procedural reasons we will end up not needing to vote at all.
Hear, hear. A bit of perspective will go a long way. What ever happened
to
As a member of membership committee I can honestly say that Vincent's
instant leaving membership committee would end up problems with
elections as well. That must be the real reason that kept him in
committee still.
Even though we have experienced some as members in past, other members
of membersh
> But I would like to say this sooner and not later that I think that you
> as a candidate yourself should not at the same time be sitting on the
> election committee- for your own sake as a serious and very skilled
> candidate to a seat on the board.
I didn't comment anything about Vincent's con
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 11:28 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> On Wed, November 16, 2005 10:33, Quim Gil wrote:
> >
> >> If the announce was not clear or if the informations can not be easily
> >> found, please send a mail to the committee so it can be improved next
> >> year.
> >
> > An improvement woul
On Wed, November 16, 2005 10:33, Quim Gil wrote:
>
>> If the announce was not clear or if the informations can not be easily
>> found, please send a mail to the committee so it can be improved next
>> year.
>
> An improvement would be to include some comments on the "campaign". I
> don't know if it
Anne Østergaard wrote:
I remember that Miguel de Icaza one year was announcing his candidacy a
little after the time limit and his candidacy was not accepted by the
committee. He also was on travel and was a very serious candidate for
the board.
With the difference that he had not expressed t
> If the announce was not clear or if the informations can not be easily
> found, please send a mail to the committee so it can be improved next
> year.
An improvement would be to include some comments on the "campaign". I
don't know if it should be about rules or netiquette. For instance:
- Rec
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 09:46 +0100, Quim Gil wrote:
> I also would assume that announcement is valid enough. We haven't got
> that many candidates and I guess the Foundation can be flexible enouh to
> accept this candidacy.
This is a problem which has to be solved by the election committee.
I reme
Hi Anne,
On Wed, November 16, 2005 08:39, Anne Østergaard wrote:
> Could we please have a full list of all the candidates who actually
> announced there candidacies for the GNOME Board of Directors within the
> time limit?
The elections timeline specifies a date for the announce of the official
l
I also would assume that announcement is valid enough. We haven't got
that many candidates and I guess the Foundation can be flexible enouh to
accept this candidacy.
Here it is a provisional patch to his announcent, to be replaced by his
confirmed candidacy. :)
His name is Jeff Waugh.
His affi
Hi,
Anne Østergaard wrote:
Jeff Waugh told us about his plans to run but I have not seen even a
short announcement of his candidacy on the list. So I assume that he
decided not to run after all this year.
I would be in favour of having his announcement that he intended to run
suffice as a ca
Could we please have a full list of all the candidates who actually
announced there candidacies for the GNOME Board of Directors within the
time limit?
Jeff Waugh told us about his plans to run but I have not seen even a
short announcement of his candidacy on the list. So I assume that he
decided
26 matches
Mail list logo
