Re: changed charter, new elections proposal

[Jon Trowbridge <trow emccta com>]

On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:40:21PM -0700, Bart Decrem wrote:
> - I propose that candidates nominate themselves by sending email to a
> list to be created by Havoc with a few sentences about their involvement
> with GNOME and what they would add to the board.  There'd be a two-week
> period for people to nominate themselves, and then we'd publish a list
> of candidates (see timeline).
> - I propose that everyone be allowed to vote for up to 11 candidates.
> So everyone gets to elect their dream-team.

Just to annoy everyone, here is another idea for how to run the
elections.

Dan Mueth and I were kicking the "to slate or not to slate" issue
around over a few beers this afternoon, and he came up with what I
thought was an optimal (though not ideal) solution to the problem: to
elect N candidates, have M rounds of voting (where M < N), and build
the board out of the top vote-getters in each election.  This gives
people the ability to try to build a board with some sort of
diversity.

One possible scenario: To fill 10 board seats, hold 3 elections.  In
the first, the top four vote-getters are put on the board.  In the
second and third, the top three candidates are seated.  (Other
permutations are possible of course...)

By having more than one successive election, it allows for people to
adjust their votes based on who has won in the previous rounds.  So if
the first round elects only Americans, people can favor Europeans and
other non-Americans in the next rounds.  If early rounds seem to favor
Helix Hat Microsystems employees, we can vote for Red Eazelmatic
people in successive rounds.

The elections could be held a few days apart, giving candidates time
to campaign based on the results of previous elections. (i.e. "No docs
people have been elected yet, so vote for me because I'm a docs
person!")

I think that this strikes an excellent balance between slates (where
the "democracy" is really just one-party rule) and a mass free-for-all
election of everyone at the same time, where the risk of an unbalanced
board is very real.

The downside, of course, is that this scheme is more complex because
it requires multiple elections.  However, it allows for at least
potentially more "programmed diversity" than just having the board be
the top ten vote-getters.

(Hopefully I've represented Dan's idea properly.  If you like this
idea give Dan the credit, and if you hate it, blame me.)

-JT

-- 
GNU/Linux: Free your mind and your OS will follow.