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>Anton Sweeney (→"Elected" v. "Appointed": reply) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__TOC__ | |||
== EC == | |||
Should specify that candidates for the EC post must be Editors, because it's an Editor who's being replaced. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 15:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC) | Should specify that candidates for the EC post must be Editors, because it's an Editor who's being replaced. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 15:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
: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) | |||
== Nomination of John Brews for Editorial Council == | |||
As [[User:John R. Brews|John Brews]] isn't an editor, but the vacancy being filled in this EC election is for an editor position, his nomination for the EC is invalid. [[User:Anton Sweeney|Anton Sweeney]] 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
=="Elected" v. "Appointed"== | |||
After an election, don't we say that the candidates were "elected"? Saying that they were "appointed" begs the question "who appointed them?" [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Fixed :-) [[User:Anton Sweeney|Anton Sweeney]] 22:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:14, 8 October 2011
EC
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)
Nomination of John Brews for Editorial Council
As John Brews isn't an editor, but the vacancy being filled in this EC election is for an editor position, his nomination for the EC is invalid. Anton Sweeney 22:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
"Elected" v. "Appointed"
After an election, don't we say that the candidates were "elected"? Saying that they were "appointed" begs the question "who appointed them?" Russell D. Jones 21:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed :-) Anton Sweeney 22:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)