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

[Ian Monroe]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Dan Meltzer
<parallelgrapefruit at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Nikolaj Hald Nielsen
> <nhnfreespirit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think the calendar year requirement is very important. Partly just
>>> for the look of things: if we have people less then a year become
>>> members based on their great involvement, then it does start to be
>>> more of a thing for cool kids. It implicitily implies that if you're
>>> not member you don't have great involvement.
>>>
>>> So before anyone applies and it becomes awkward, I'll just declare
>>> that I likely won't be voting for any new voting members (unless
>>> someone slipped through the cracks in the initial member list).
>>
>> I disagree. I think (as you sort of say yourself) that a year is
>> purely cosmetic. Any project that does not wish to stagnate needs
>> fresh inputs every once in a while. So I likely _will_ be voting for
>> many of the GSoC'ers should they choose to apply.
>
> I suppose thats why it's a vote and not a mandate from paparok :)
>
> People have different criteria they would like to see in the board,
> and this provides an opportunity for these criteria to be voted on.  I
> think that trying to convince others that your criteria are the right
> ones, before the vote, is kind of defeating the purpose of voting.

Discussion isn't a part of voting? Thats pretty depressing.

Ian