+1, if we lag a bit finding another candidate, I think that's fine. I want to be able to say that we voted. I'm sorry that I can't actually do it this year everyone!



On Mar 28, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:

> Göran Krampe wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> 
>> I have been slacking a bit on handling this years Election, and the result is now that we have a slight "conundrum".
>> 
>> The good news is that we have 7 candidates announced, 4 re-running and 3 new candidates (thus 3 deciding to not re-run this year):
>> 
>> http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6162
>> 
>> 
>> ...the bad news is that the board usually has 7 members, so we are quite short on candidates in fact.
>> 
>> Instead of making an immediate decision on how to handle this I want you - the community - to speak up. What should we do? Options:
>> 
>> 1. Prolong the candidacy period, and/or let it continue up until the day before the election starts. Hopefully getting more candidates.
>> 
>> 2. Skip the rest and just grab the 7 we have! :)
>> 
>> 3. Decide to lower the number of seats on the board.
>> 
>> 
>> ...well, I can't think of more options right now. What do you all think?
>> 
>> regards, Göran
> 
> I think 1. is ok. Otherwise, I'd prefer doing the election as usual, even if the result is already known. I'm against 2. and 3. Those would be changing the rules to adapt to a specific situation. Rules should last. (Maybe I'm too sensitive about this... I come from a country that had a long tradition of breaking the Constitution. That was _never_ good in the long run.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
>