CZ Talk:Special Elections and Referenda October 2011: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis (Hayford, do you know this?) |
imported>Peter Jackson No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Good catch, Peter - thanks. Page modified. [[User:Anton Sweeney|Anton Sweeney]] 08:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC) | :Good catch, Peter - thanks. Page modified. [[User:Anton Sweeney|Anton Sweeney]] 08:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
::We still need clarification on the expiration of the seat vacated by Howard. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC) | ::We still need clarification on the expiration of the seat vacated by Howard. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::It's for the EC to say which of their members serve short terms, and they don't seem to have done so yet. So candidates won't know what they're letting themselves in for. But then the recent MC decision has that effect too: people with more votes get longer terms. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 14:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:56, 10 September 2011
Should specify that candidates for the EC post must be Editors, because it's an Editor who's being replaced. Peter Jackson 15:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch, Peter - thanks. Page modified. Anton Sweeney 08:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- We still need clarification on the expiration of the seat vacated by Howard. D. Matt Innis 14:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's for the EC to say which of their members serve short terms, and they don't seem to have done so yet. So candidates won't know what they're letting themselves in for. But then the recent MC decision has that effect too: people with more votes get longer terms. Peter Jackson 14:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- We still need clarification on the expiration of the seat vacated by Howard. D. Matt Innis 14:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)