On Wednesday 08 September 2010 15:16:41 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Friday 03 September 2010 15:05:02 Vincent Untz wrote:
Yo,
Le jeudi 02 septembre 2010, à 11:33 +0200, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
Existing rules: * Only openSUSE members may run for the Board and vote, each
member having one ballot that has one vote per seat to be elected. * The election is run by an Election Committee that consists of at least three openSUSE members. * None of the Election Committee can run for or be elected as an openSUSE board member.Oh, I had forgotten about this rule. I'm unsure it's really needed and I wonder if we could remove it. I can imagine a case where all the people with experience organizing an elections run for the elections, and so the election committee has no experience at all...
What do others thing?
I would personally say that those running the elections have to be neutral, so they can't be choosen... More a matter of principle (avoiding any hint of possible influence) than really a practical issue I guess. Either way, IF there is a situation where those running the elections have no experience they can always call on expertise of those who do.
But well, I won't fight over it.
* The openSUSE board election period is two years and every year approximately half of the board will be elected. So, the people getting elected this time are elected for two years. The other members stand for re-election next year and get a 2 year period as well.This should be updated, now that we got two elections. Something like:
"The openSUSE board term is two years. Approximately half of the board is elected every year. This means that every year, the term of approximately half of the board ends, and the term of the other half ends the year after."
Agreed and updated in my local version for the next iteration.
Add: The chairman, nominated by Novell is changed only and when Novell wants so.
If all the elected board members ask for the chairman to be changed, then, imho, Novell should do it. So I'd update this rule accordingly.
ok.
Add: * In case of resignations or removals, the election period should
be adjusted so that the next year again at least two people get elected. The elected seats with the most votes would then get elected for two years, those with the lowest votes for only one year.I wouldn't say "two people", but "half of the board" again, just in case we increase the board size. I suggest to update it this way:
"In case of resignations or removals occured since last elections, the term for elected board members for the current elections will be adjusted to make sure that half of the board seats will have to be filled during the next elections.
To implement this adjustment, the elected seats with the most votes will have a two years term, while the seats with the lowest votes will have a one year term. The number of seats with the lowest votes is calculated so that half of the board seats will have to be filled during the next elections."
Okay, not perfect either, so it needs a third rework, I guess ;-)
Let's see what others say ;)
* openSUSE board members can serve for up to two consecutive election periods. After that they must stand down for at least one year, but may be run again after the one year break. * All candidates will publish their manifesto on the Wiki, and are strongly encouraged to blog on why they should be elected.I don't think this last one should be a rule, or at least, I'd remove the second part which has nothing to do with a rule.
Yes, I remove it now.
New rules:
Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get
appointend by the board. Appointed seats are only appointed until the next election. A Novell employee has to be replaced by a Novell employee, and the same applies to community member.
Fine with me.
Alternative:
Appointment: The Running board is allowed to appoint one new member
and one only in the following situations: Resignation of a member or removal of a member. If an appointed member quits, he can be replaced by the board. If a second elected member quits, a new election have to be organised.
I don't like that version, as I'm not sure it's worth it. However, I agree with the proposal discussed later in the thread (if 20% of the membership wants new elections, then...).
I've added that one now. Still it leaves open how that can be done...
Resignation: Any member can resignate at will, but then he will not
be allowed to be a candidate for the next election.
I disagree with that: if I get elected, and learn after two months that I will be extremly busy for six months and will not have time for the board, I will resign. But I might want to run for the next elections. It's up to the membership to decide if someone will get elected, and if somebody resigns and runs again, I expect people to ask why.
You're right, the members can take this into account.
Nominations: The election committee will take self-nominations,
nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election committee will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they stand for election.
Can we add that "nominations by others" and "nominations by the committee" are private until accepted by the nominated people? Self-nominations are okay to be public, but nominations by others is a different story.
Yes, added.
Insufficient Nominations: If there are fewer nominees for elected
Board seats than required to fill all seats, than the board will appoint these remaining seats.
Equal number of candidates of seats: If there is an equal number of
candidates and seats, voting occurs as normal but each candidate needs to have more than 50 per cent yes votes. In case that seats do not get elected, the board will appoint them.
I'm still not happy with those two rules: the second one really goes against the first one. If there are 2 candidates for 3 seats, then the 2 candidates are elected. But if a 3rd candidate appear, then they will have to be approved by the community and might not get elected? Sounds wrong.
So either change the first rule to also have this 50% thing, or (my preferred option), remove the 50% thing from the second rule and just say they get elected. As I mentioned in my other mail, it's up to the openSUSE members to realize that if they don't want those people elected, then they should run for the elections. Especially if there's extra time (see rule below).
I wanted to have the 50 % in both rules, I've made this now clearer with one instead of two rules:
Insufficient Nominations: If there are fewer nominees for elected Board seats than required to fill all seats, than the board will appoint these remaining seats.
If there are not more candidates than seats, voting occurs as normal but each candidate needs to have more than 50 per cent yes votes. In case that seats do not get elected, the board will appoint them.
Extra time for candidate search: In the event of not more candidates
than seats, the voting period will be delayed by two weeks. A public message will be send out to ask again for candidates and remind the openSUSE members about the alternatives.
"more candidates than seats" should be strict (ie, >, and not >=). So if we have equal nimber of candidates and seats, the extra time will be there.
Yes. Should we make that clearer?
Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new
board member.
s/should/must/
Removal: In the event of repeated absence without contact, or other
serious misconduct or negligence, a Board member may be subject to removal. Before any other process occurs, the Board member in question will be personally contacted by the chairperson to try to resolve the situation. If this contact does not successfully resolve the situation, the Board member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of the Board. The board should appoint a new board member.
Repeated absence is defined as missing three consecutive board meetings without sending regrets.
Sounds good. It might be worth leaving room to other forms of repeated absence. For example, someone attending all meetings but ignoring all mails is not doing his job. Or sending regrets for 10 meetings is bad.
Repeated absence includes missing three consecutive board meetings without sending regrets, not answering at all to emails or sending regrets for more than 10 meetings.
Novell employement: Novell employment have to be valid at the vote
date. Any change will not have an effect on the board membership situation. In the next election the distribution of seats gets fixed again.
How does it get fixed? Does the person who changed employment have to run for elections again?
Yeah, this gets tricky.
Constitution: A new board term should start on the first of January,
the elections should be finished 14 days before. In the case of delays, the new board will start 7 days after the election results are published.
Tie: In the event of a tie for the final slot on the board, the
election committee will schedule run-off elections as soon as possible to resolve the tie.
run-off elections between the tied candidates. And "as soon as possible" should probably be more defined. Something like "the week after, with a voting period of one week.".
Ok.
Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the
board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
I'd add "or by vote of the membership where 2/3 of the openSUSE members approve it".
Thanks for your work on this!
Thanks for your great comments,
Andreas