On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 07:55 -0700, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I note btw that the *candidate* requirements didn't change -- so any
> potential candidates need to have been editing this spring. I don't
> have a problem with this requirement (community representatives should
> probably be active editors), but it does notably exclude "inactive"
> members from running, regardless of their former status in the
> community or current off-wiki participation (it'd be nice to see a
> developer exemption!).
The requirement for the candidate have been updated as per for being a
voter. It was a small oversight due to the initial query being made
about the voter requirement. The committee noticed the issue as soon as
we actually made the change for the voter, and have decided to
synchronise the candidate requirement as well.
KTC
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
> I note btw that the *candidate* requirements didn't change -- so any
> potential candidates need to have been editing this spring. I don't
> have a problem with this requirement (community representatives should
> probably be active editors), but it does notably exclude "inactive"
> members from running, regardless of their former status in the
> community or current off-wiki participation (it'd be nice to see a
> developer exemption!).
The requirement for the candidate have been updated as per for being a
voter. It was a small oversight due to the initial query being made
about the voter requirement. The committee noticed the issue as soon as
we actually made the change for the voter, and have decided to
synchronise the candidate requirement as well.
KTC
--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine