stephane ducasse wrote:
> Now a better answer would be that 1/2 or 2/3 of the board should be 
> renewed every year. This way we make
> sure that people with fresh energy can contribute. This is a point I 
> will ask the new board to vote on.

Well, I don't really see how the board could vote on this - if the board 
is a representative of the community then it's the community who votes 
on it. And if the community wants "more of the same" it can certainly 
say so (and, not surprisingly, has in this election). It would be 
difficult to make arbitrary decisions like requiring that there must be 
a certain amount of turnaround each year - as long as people have fun 
they should be allowed to run, and if they get elected, they get elected!

> I would prefer that if I drop the next person on the list get the position.

Now *that* is an issue where I have complete trust in the board to come 
up with a reasonable solution. If the board thinks that the best 
solution is to co-opt another member, go for it. If the board thinks its 
best to continue with reduced numbers, go for it. Either way is 
reasonable and it really depends on the concrete situation.

Cheers,
   - Andreas