On Mar 8, 2007, at 22:16 , Craig Latta wrote:

>
>> Any board can make life difficult for a particular member, this is a
>> fact of life, but they should not then get to decide whether to  
>> accept
>> a replacement based on whether they like the next guy or not.
>
>      I prefer to use the next-ranked candidate because (s)he is
> next-ranked; it has nothing to do with any other figure of merit, only
> with the will of the voters. I do think that such a policy would  
> tend to
> get more newcomers into the board (since incumbents seem to get higher
> rankings), the fact that the next-ranked person in this election would
> be new is not what motivated my suggestion.
>
>> ...such decisions should be made either by a third party (like
>> elections or squeak-dev) or preferably by following a fixed policy
>> (such as "quits not replaced, majority quits means new elections").
>
>      Right; I'm proposing a fixed policy: replace with the next-ranked
> people willing to serve until you fill the board. I prefer this  
> over not
>  filling the vacancy (like last year) because it could help to get new
> people into the board.

This is all theoretical, but - say there are 8 candidates one of  
which gets no vote at all - so everybody dislikes him. But if one of  
the board members resigns, he would get in?

- Bert -