Re: GNOME Foundation elections!

[Bart Decrem <bart eazel com>]

Hi Russell,

I suggested that rather than create a whole new 'body' we just take the
existing membership committee that the steering committee has created and
add you to it.  One less committee to create:

It sounds like there's consensus to hold the elections via postings to a
publicly archived mailing list.  That provides a lot of openness.
Therefore, I don't think we need to go crazy coming up with a supervisors
system.  Right now, there's a Membership committee on the Steering
Committee.  I think it's just 2 people or so.  Russell, why don't you join
that committee, and that committee can oversee the elections.  Does that
strike the right balance?

Bart

Russell Steinthal wrote:

> Joe Shaw writes:
> >>
> >> My inclination would be to go with an impartial body, i.e. a
> >> committee without any members who are also standing for election.
> >
> >Perhaps the collab.net guys could be in charge of this? Are they still
> >involved in the foundation? How will having an oversight board make the
> >election process radically easier?
> >
> >As long as everyone verifies their own vote, I don't really see a big
> >problem in having the community oversee their own election.
>
> I think that self-validation is the assumed first step; Havoc's
> message, at least as I read it, addressed the step beyond that: how do
> we arbitrate any disputes which might arise?  The traditional "discuss
> until we get consensus" model is simply not sufficient for this
> purpose, when we need to reach a definite decision in a short period
> of time.  Hopefully, there won't be any disputes which require
> adjudication; I doubt there will be.  But we should have a process,
> even if a simple one, in place in advance to handle any problems which
> do arise.
>
> Havoc suggested two possible mechanisms: allow the current steering
> committee to rule on any questions (subject to recusal by members at
> interest in the dispute) or having an independent body whose sole
> purpose is to resolve the hopefully small number of disputes.  I
> suggested that I think the latter would be simpler.
>
> As to collab.net, if they are willing and non-candidates, they could
> certainly fill this role, probably better than an ad hoc group could.
>
> -Russell
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list