Summary of board- and voting-related discussions, and what comes next

[Leo Franchi]

On 27 Jan 2009, at 13:14, Nikolaj Hald Nielsen wrote:

> Personally I feel that last years GSoC students ( at least the ones
> still active ) deserve a vote. This is somewhat less than 1 year but
> many of them has already put in a non trivial amount of work, attended
> Akademy and other conferences, ...
>

This is why they would get a chance to be voted in immediately.

So they should email me to start the process if they wish.

leo

>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Leo Franchi <lfranchi at kde.org> wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2009, at 13:14, Gregory Meyer wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Leo Franchi <lfranchi at kde.org>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It has been a week since the last mail on either the topic of legal
>>
>> representation or voting systems. I think it is a good time to sum up
>>
>> what people have said and where we can go from here.
>>
>> Something just came to mind: it makes more sense (i think) to first  
>> vote on
>> new members before voting for the board. Otherwise it seems like  
>> we're
>> appointing the voters who will then vote for the board (which may  
>> be made up
>> of those who made the appointments).
>> If someone is voted to get voting powers immediately, then it is  
>> natural
>> that he/she should be able to vote for the board itself.
>> I propose instead of having a 2 week period of voting for board  
>> nominees
>> (which is a loong time really), we vote on new voting members from  
>> now (as
>> the current list is already fixed and ready) to the end of the  
>> first week
>> (so Feb 6th lets say), and vote on the board itself from Feb 7th to  
>> Feb
>> 14th.
>> I would like to remind people of two things:
>> 1) the voting body is not a super cool club with private mailing  
>> lists and
>> private irc channels. (like the KDE e.V.)
>> 2) there are some qualifications: basically that you have been  
>> involved with
>> amarok in some way (coding, community, etc) for a while, preferable  
>> >1yr.
>> i say there are no "hard" qualifications because obviously as it is  
>> a vote
>> there is some flexibility, and if people don't feel that you have  
>> been
>> involved enough then the vote will not pass.
>> so if you would like to be included in the voting body, please  
>> email me
>> off-list and once
>> thoughts?
>> leo
>> ----
>> Leo Franchi (650) 704 3680
>> Tufts University 2010
>> lfranchi at kde.org
>> leonardo.franchi at tufts.edu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amarok-devel mailing list
>> Amarok-devel at kde.org
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok-devel mailing list
> Amarok-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel

---
Leo Franchi				(650) 704 3680
Tufts University 2010

lfranchi at kde.org
leonardo.franchi at tufts.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/amarok-devel/attachments/20090127/19e556a9/attachment.htm