Difference between revisions of "Talk:Oversight Board/2017-2019-candidates"
Laura Vargas (talk | contribs) (Corrected author of comment) |
Laura Vargas (talk | contribs) (changed "we" for "I" for accuracy) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:I don't follow the logic--seems arbitrary. I didn't agree with purging the members list either. But I defer to the committee. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] ([[User talk:Walter|talk]]) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT) | :I don't follow the logic--seems arbitrary. I didn't agree with purging the members list either. But I defer to the committee. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] ([[User talk:Walter|talk]]) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT) | ||
| − | I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid irrelevant information such as quoting other people's toughs different from those toughs of the candidate him/her self. Instead | + | I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid irrelevant information such as quoting other people's toughs different from those toughs of the candidate him/her self. Instead I suggest candidates to focus on a simple message to share your motivation, vision and/or management skills that make you an ideal candidate for the Sugar Labs Oversight Board. |
[[User:Laura Vargas|Laura Vargas]] ([[User talk:Laura Vargas|talk]]) 20:06, 31 August 2017 (EDT) | [[User:Laura Vargas|Laura Vargas]] ([[User talk:Laura Vargas|talk]]) 20:06, 31 August 2017 (EDT) | ||
:Another "properly presented" requirement? --[[User:Walter|Walter]] ([[User talk:Walter|talk]]) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT) | :Another "properly presented" requirement? --[[User:Walter|Walter]] ([[User talk:Walter|talk]]) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:13, 7 September 2017
I suppose the (seemingly arbitrary) limit of 1500 characters has forced me to be focused. You can look at the change log to see my 3000 character statement. --Walter (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
The 1500 character's limit is strategic to increase readability of all candidates statements. It was properly presented as the requirement for valid candidacies to current Oversight Board during August meeting. Laura Vargas (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
- I don't follow the logic--seems arbitrary. I didn't agree with purging the members list either. But I defer to the committee. --Walter (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (EDT)
I strongly suggest candidates to optimize space given and avoid irrelevant information such as quoting other people's toughs different from those toughs of the candidate him/her self. Instead I suggest candidates to focus on a simple message to share your motivation, vision and/or management skills that make you an ideal candidate for the Sugar Labs Oversight Board. Laura Vargas (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2017 (EDT)