Re: Why is there only self-nomination?
- To: Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Why is there only self-nomination?
- From: Josip Rodin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:43:07 +0100
- Message-id: <20070302104307.GA8547@keid.carnet.hr>
- In-reply-to: <45E747FF.email@example.com>
- References: <200703011324.l21DORYa004917@cft.snafu.priv.at> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070301134517.GH2104@excelhustler.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070301145455.GB13970@azure.humbug.org.au> <20070301161448.GA23590@scowler.net> <45E747FF.email@example.com>
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 10:39:11PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Personally, I think the idea of a DD having to ack his nomination, though
> only after being nominated by some (Q?) fellow DDs would be better than a
> plain self-nomination. What do others think?
You don't want Q, Q is too much, it's 15/16 now. I think it's unreasonable
to expect someone to get fifteen votes before the voting has even started.
A requirement of 1, 2 or 3 seconds would be good. For example, we have one
NM advocate already, and a requirement for voting proposals to get five
seconds, and that works out all right.
2. That which causes joy or happiness.