In the event of not enough board members, should we choose five rather than e.g. six, such that votes wouldn't be hung? Or appoint someone to break ties? The philosophers rarely bring enough forks for spaghetti anyhow, and an extra cause of deadlock would be bad. <div>
<br></div><div>Andreas does make a good point. There is a contingency here that we might consider planning for, even if it is an edge case. And I really like my bowler.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Colin Putney <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:colin@wiresong.com" target="_blank">colin@wiresong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Randal L. Schwartz<br>
<<a href="mailto:merlyn@stonehenge.com">merlyn@stonehenge.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Wacknitz <<a href="mailto:a.wacknitz@gmx.de">a.wacknitz@gmx.de</a>> writes:<br>
><br>
> Andreas> What if there are less than 7 candidates?<br>
><br>
> It makes the election much simpler. :)<br>
<br>
</div>To put it another way, it's possible for a seat to be empty. If there<br>
aren't enough candidates at election time, then (1) all the candidates<br>
we do have automatically get elected, and (2) one or more seats are<br>
left empty. The board can function without all the seats filled.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Colin<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Casey Ransberger<br>
</div>