On 12/13/20 12:38 AM, Mark Stopka wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 1:19 PM Adrien Glauser
wrote: Modifying the "Petition of no confidence article". Sounds good.
Your proposal: """ Forced re-election: 10 individual members may contact the election officials requesting a petition of non confidence in the board. If 20 per cent or more openSUSE members require a new board, an election will be held for the complete elected Board seats. """ For my understanding: do you see your reformulation as equivalent to the following? """ Petition of No Confidence: When the Board Elections are not running, 10 openSUSE members may contact the Election Committee to request a petition of non confidence. The Election Committee then sees to organize a community-wide vote on the petition. The petition is accepted if the vote results in 20 per cent of Yes. If the petition is accepted, the Board is dismissed immediately and the Election Committee organizes a new election to be held no longer than < n weeks > after the vote. """ If you had in mind something different, which are the differences which would make you prefer your version?
My governance nose is also telling me that a rule for inaction of the Election Committee should be added... Obliging someone to something without a deadline is a widely misused "loophole".
This is probably also a decent idea, in practice in the past the board has replaced or called for additional members if a process is taking the election officials too long. The period of time when the standard yearly election should run is specified although we haven't done a good job of keeping it often due to reasons that are out of the election officials control. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B