Committee Votes: Public or Private?
Because we have three extremely qualified candidates with whom many of us have become friends, there is now a request that we allow voting in private so that no feelings get stepped upon.
Give me your opinions. Should we allow private votes?
Aaron Spike
Aaron Spike wrote:
Because we have three extremely qualified candidates with whom many of us have become friends, there is now a request that we allow voting in private so that no feelings get stepped upon.
Give me your opinions. Should we allow private votes?
Aaron Spike
Sorry for butting in. But just a suggestion...
None of the three nominees were exactly "chomping at the bit" ISTM. So you "could" email each of them off-list and ask them to submit a number between 1 & 10 for how much they'd really like to do it...
Just an idea... Don't shoot me - please.
It's a great product, and a really friendly community. And one of the coolest OSS projects anywhere...
Good luck.
Al
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:58PM -0500, Aaron Spike wrote:
Because we have three extremely qualified candidates with whom many of us have become friends, there is now a request that we allow voting in private so that no feelings get stepped upon.
Give me your opinions. Should we allow private votes?
+1
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:58PM -0500, Aaron Spike wrote:
Because we have three extremely qualified candidates with whom many of us have become friends, there is now a request that we allow voting in private so that no feelings get stepped upon.
Give me your opinions. Should we allow private votes?
+1
Bryce
Because there is resounding agreement among Bryce, I will allow private votes sent to aaron@...1928...
Thank you to everyone who shared their opinion. :-)
Aaron Spike
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:39:54PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:58PM -0500, Aaron Spike wrote:
Because we have three extremely qualified candidates with whom many of us have become friends, there is now a request that we allow voting in private so that no feelings get stepped upon.
The three nominees are qualified in fairly different ways. I think all nominees would recognize that each of the other two is arguably the best choice, and thus we needn't feel rejected or unappreciated if not selected.
The point about board work taking time away from other contributions means that not being selected is actually a vote of confidence in the value of not distracting us from our other work :) .
Just thought it worth reminding nominees before the final vote is known; and perhaps reassuring voters too.
pjrm.
participants (4)
-
Aaron Spike -
Alan Lord -
Bryce Harrington -
Peter Moulder