Le Tue, 23 Nov 2010 04:20:48 +0800,
David Nelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> a écrit :
Hi Charles, :-)
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 00:18, Charles-H. Schulz
thank you a lot for this!!!
No problem. I've got a watch on the page, and will visit whenever
there's a change then. ;-)
1) "(however, ESC members who are also members of the BoD can only
cast one single vote in this election, regardless of their
membership of both bodies)": So which body do they cast their vote
in? How and when is that decision taken? The choice could change
the outcome of the voting.
Right, that sounds clunky so let me clarify: members of the ESC who
are also members of the BoD only vote at the BoD and not at the
ESC. Is it better?
I understood what you meant, no problem there. The ambiguity is how
the decision is taken about which body they vote on... Especially as
throwing their vote in on one body or the other could maybe weight the
election in one direction or another, and change the result. My
suggestion was that it would be good to lay down unambiguous rules for
yup. But after Michael's points, I also think we might clarify and
simplify all this a great deal. In a nutshell
1) the ESC does not get to vote, it's not elected, and it's a technical
body. The AB can propose candidate(s), but cannot vote.
2) BoD appoints the CH, by vote or by consensus. People can nominate
themselves and send their nomination to the BoD no later than 2 months
before the election date. The AB can also nominate one or several
candidates and sends the name(s) to the BoD no later than 2 months
before the election.
That way, it's easier and faster. Any thoughts?
2) "(a specific list of names, or one name only, will have been
submitted by the BoD and the AB)": How would the list be drawn up?
Perhaps you need at least a cross-reference to another clause in
the bye-laws that resolves that question? If there's only one
name, then there would be no point in voting at all...
I can clarify that, but in essence I guess 1)people will nominate
themselves to the BoD and 1)that the BoD as well as the AB can
OK, I get the idea. Perhaps a separate, short paragraph explaining
that might be good? I could draft one tomorrow and submit it in a
standalone edit that will be easy to identify and roll back/modify if
it doesn't quite say what you want...?
3) "However, if three different people are nominated, then a
conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one
nominee and making a choice between two nominees only.": That could
give rise to a difficult situation...
I guess this is the point that, IMVHO, might be in most need of an
unequivocal procedure, as it could give rise to controversial
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy