Re: changed charter, new elections proposal

Bart Decrem <bart eazel com> writes:

> I think we should do as Allen suggests: let's keep things very simple this
> year, and then reflect on how things went and tweak the system for next year.
> Frankly, I suspect our problem in this election will be to get enough
> candidates to nominate themselves and to get decent voter turnout.  Keeping
> things simple, well, keeps them simple, and encourages voter turnout.
> So I think we should just:
> - let everyone vote for up to 11 candidates
> - not publish interim election results or hold more than one round of
> elections
> - keep the mailing list archive closed until the end of the election
> - if there's tied votes for the last slot, the candidates whose votes are tied
> should have the right to ask for a run-off election, but they should also have
> the right to allow the already-elected board members to resolve the tie (since
> that would simplify thing - I am not looking forward to the idea of run-off
> elections between the  two candidates who had the 11th highest number of votes
> - that will not be an exciting event).  In otherworse, unless they all agree
> to let the other board members decide, there'll be a run-off.

Why not allow under this special situation a board with 12 members on it so
they could both be placed on the board ?

Of cause, this only works if it are really only two people and not more, but
this should be highly unlikely.

> - the charter has provisions for dealing with cases where more than half of
> the elected members are affiliated with a company.  Basically, only the 5
> folks who work for the company that have the highest number of votes would be
> considered.  Let's leave it as is.  Sure, as Maciej points out, it's a high
> treshhold, but it's an emergency provision, so I think it's fine.
> - I disagree with Russell's proposal below.  Setting aside specific slots for
> specific types of representation would be a mess that's an order of magnitude
> bigger than having slates.
> No-one has commented on the proposed timeline.  Let me know if you have
> concerns about that.  Meanwhile, I'm going to start writing up election
> documents.
> Also, I know there's a membership committee that was created by the steering
> committee to oversee the members registration process.
> Havoc: who's on that?
> I propose that we turn it into an election committee that would oversee
> membership registration but that would also monitor the election, announce the
> results, and propose resolutions to election logistics issues that we bump
> into.
> Russell, can I volunteer you to join that committee?

Btw. I start to feel comfortable with this new approach; I mean, I'd like the
slate system very much, but we should really take things as they are now and
try to make the best out of it.

So let's just keep things simple as Alan suggested.

Martin Baulig
martin gnome org (private)
baulig suse de (work)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]