[opensuse-project] The New 2013 Board Members are:
As of 23:00 UTC on 16 December, 2012, the openSUSE Project’s members completed the Fifth election of the openSUSE Board. At stake were two seats of the five electable seats. With 8 candidates, the community definitely had a broad choice of qualified candidates to choose from. In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively. They will join the openSUSE Board on January 9th during the transitional meeting of the regularly scheduled Project meeting heldon the Freenode IRC Channel at 17:00 UTC. The Election Officials would like to congratulate all of thecandidates for a great campaign season. These candidates included Matt Barringer, Richard Brown, Carl Fletcher, Manu Gupta, Chuck Payne and Stefan Seyfried. All of these candidates demonstrated a commitment to the Project and exemplified the Guiding Principles which the Project, as a whole, is founded upon. We join the rest of the community in looking forward to an exciting year to come as the new Board embarks on new initiatives and directions. And we thank the community for giving us the opportunity to serve as members of the election committee. Sincerely, The openSUSE Election Committee - Izabel Valverde - Thomas Schmidt - Bryen M Yunashko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Monday, December 17, 2012 07:59:54 AM Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
As of 23:00 UTC on 16 December, 2012, the openSUSE Project’s members completed the Fifth election of the openSUSE Board. At stake were two seats of the five electable seats. With 8 candidates, the community definitely had a broad choice of qualified candidates to choose from.
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively. They will join the openSUSE Board on January 9th during the transitional meeting of the regularly scheduled Project meeting heldon the Freenode IRC Channel at 17:00 UTC.
The Election Officials would like to congratulate all of thecandidates for a great campaign season. These candidates included Matt Barringer, Richard Brown, Carl Fletcher, Manu Gupta, Chuck Payne and Stefan Seyfried. All of these candidates demonstrated a commitment to the Project and exemplified the Guiding Principles which the Project, as a whole, is founded upon.
We join the rest of the community in looking forward to an exciting year to come as the new Board embarks on new initiatives and directions. And we thank the community for giving us the opportunity to serve as members of the election committee.
Sincerely, The openSUSE Election Committee
- Izabel Valverde - Thomas Schmidt - Bryen M Yunashko
Congratulations to Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert (robjo) for taking our flag and project dreams next level. Wishing the best. Thanks to all candidates without you it would be hard for several from us to understand some spots on this big ecosystem. Regards, -- Ricardo Chung | Panama Ambassador openSUSE Projects -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Monday 17 December 2012 07:59:54 Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
The Election Officials would like to congratulate all of thecandidates for a great campaign season. These candidates included Matt Barringer, Richard Brown, Carl Fletcher, Manu Gupta, Chuck Payne and Stefan Seyfried. All of these candidates demonstrated a commitment to the Project and exemplified the Guiding Principles which the Project, as a whole, is founded upon.
I would like to congratulate Robert on his new seat on the Board. Also a special thank you to the openSUSE Election Committee for a job very well done. Without you this Election would not have been possible and I believe that everybody would agree on this.
We join the rest of the community in looking forward to an exciting year to come as the new Board embarks on new initiatives and directions. And we thank the community for giving us the opportunity to serve as members of the election committee.
Unfortunately only two people could be elected, but I strongly believe that we should take all the ideas/programs presented by all candidates and see where things needs to be improved. All of the candidates were strong with good ideas and it would be ashame to let these ideas go to waste. So I hope that I can count on the support and the help of the other candidates in order to implement all the ideas. Raymond -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 2012-12-17 15:37:06 (+0100), Raymond Wooninck <tittiatcoke@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday 17 December 2012 07:59:54 Bryen M Yunashko wrote: [...]
Congrats to Robert and Raymond, and thanks to all the candidates for participating. Thanks to the election team too, obviously :)
Unfortunately only two people could be elected, but I strongly believe that we should take all the ideas/programs presented by all candidates and see where things needs to be improved. All of the candidates were strong with good ideas and it would be ashame to let these ideas go to waste. So I hope that I can count on the support and the help of the other candidates in order to implement all the ideas.
Sure, of course, ideas are always welcome. But let's confront them with reality first :) cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser /\\ http://opensuse.org -- we haz green _\_v http://fosdem.org -- we haz conf
Congratulations to the new board members. Bryen, I'm curious what the vote totals were. Not so much which candidate got what, but how the votes were spread out. ie. Total votes: nnn cast Candidate #1: x votes #2: y votes etc. I'm mostly curious if the 2 winners percentages are well below a majority vote (whatever that means in a 2-vote election). fyi: I have no desire to change the rules for this election, but if the winners didn't have a majority I may propose something for the one a year from now. Thanks Greg On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Bryen M Yunashko <suserocks@bryen.com> wrote:
As of 23:00 UTC on 16 December, 2012, the openSUSE Project’s members completed the Fifth election of the openSUSE Board. At stake were two seats of the five electable seats. With 8 candidates, the community definitely had a broad choice of qualified candidates to choose from.
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively. They will join the openSUSE Board on January 9th during the transitional meeting of the regularly scheduled Project meeting heldon the Freenode IRC Channel at 17:00 UTC.
The Election Officials would like to congratulate all of thecandidates for a great campaign season. These candidates included Matt Barringer, Richard Brown, Carl Fletcher, Manu Gupta, Chuck Payne and Stefan Seyfried. All of these candidates demonstrated a commitment to the Project and exemplified the Guiding Principles which the Project, as a whole, is founded upon.
We join the rest of the community in looking forward to an exciting year to come as the new Board embarks on new initiatives and directions. And we thank the community for giving us the opportunity to serve as members of the election committee.
Sincerely, The openSUSE Election Committee
- Izabel Valverde - Thomas Schmidt - Bryen M Yunashko
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
-- Greg Freemyer Head of EDD Tape Extraction and Processing team Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer CNN/TruTV Aired Forensic Imaging Demo - http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/23/how-computer-evidence-gets-retriev... The Norcross Group The Intersection of Evidence & Technology http://www.norcrossgroup.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, Am Montag, 17. Dezember 2012 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
Bryen, I'm curious what the vote totals were. Not so much which candidate got what, but how the votes were spread out.
ie. Total votes: nnn cast Candidate #1: x votes #2: y votes etc.
The election results are public on connect: https://connect.opensuse.org/pg/polls/read/digitaltomm/42100/opensuse-board-... Gruß Christian Boltz -- Linux ist ein tolles Dings..... Es zeigt mir jeden Tag wieder völlig unaufdringlich meine Grenzen, und zeigt mir was ich alles noch nicht weiß.... [Axel Birndt in suse-linux] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Christian Boltz <cb@cboltz.de> wrote:
Hello,
Am Montag, 17. Dezember 2012 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
Bryen, I'm curious what the vote totals were. Not so much which candidate got what, but how the votes were spread out.
ie. Total votes: nnn cast Candidate #1: x votes #2: y votes etc.
The election results are public on connect: https://connect.opensuse.org/pg/polls/read/digitaltomm/42100/opensuse-board-...
Thanks, That does indeed show my concern. The two winners only had 36% and 31% of the voters vote for them. I assume that's because such a big selection of truly good candidates. Again, I have no desire to change this year's process, but for future years an alternate solution would be my preference. Vincent said: "the GNOME Foundation now uses one of the STV variants (Scottish STV, according to the result page). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote for discussion on STV. There are pros and cons, obviously." Is there software available to do the vote counting for STV? Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is. Thanks Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:53:11 -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
I'm not, because statistically when you have a larger number of candidates than 2, it's likely the winner will have < 50% of the vote. It'd be possible in a three candidate race for a single position to win with 34% of the vote. That's the way the math works out. There's no need to complicate things further with a more elaborate voting system. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:53:11 -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
I'm not, because statistically when you have a larger number of candidates than 2, it's likely the winner will have < 50% of the vote. It'd be possible in a three candidate race for a single position to win with 34% of the vote.
That's the way the math works out. There's no need to complicate things further with a more elaborate voting system.
Jim Jim,
You're totally correct about the math, but at least in the USA, we tend to have election rules that reduce the number of candidates until one of them gets 50%. The STV approach is a way to allow voters to register the preferences all at once, then there is an algorithm to modify their vote as candidates are dropped from consideration. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:17:25 -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
You're totally correct about the math, but at least in the USA, we tend to have election rules that reduce the number of candidates until one of them gets 50%.
That's not strictly true - look at the 2012 Nevada senate race - the winner had ~46% of the vote, and the next candidate had ~44% of the vote. Simple majority. The same was the case in the US House race in Louisiana’s 3rd district, where there were two open seats and 5 candidates. I can't think of any specific case I've ever heard of where less than 50% caused some sort of a runoff - it's not common, certainly. I have a vague recollection of a second election being called because the race was "too close to call" and nobody would concede, but that's a different situation.
The STV approach is a way to allow voters to register the preferences all at once, then there is an algorithm to modify their vote as candidates are dropped from consideration.
I personally don't see a need to overcomplicate the election process. A simple majority IMHO is sufficient for our needs. It's clear, easily explained, and simple. I think the KISS principle applies here. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/21/2012 12:17 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:53:11 -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
I'm not, because statistically when you have a larger number of candidates than 2, it's likely the winner will have < 50% of the vote. It'd be possible in a three candidate race for a single position to win with 34% of the vote.
That's the way the math works out. There's no need to complicate things further with a more elaborate voting system.
Jim Jim,
You're totally correct about the math, but at least in the USA, we tend to have election rules that reduce the number of candidates until one of them gets 50%.
Well, for what is arguably the most important vote in the USA, the presidential election, your statement can be misleading/confusing. The extremely stupid system in the USA, allots electoral votes to a candidate. Having sufficient electoral votes to win the presidency does not imply that the person elected president actually won the majority of votes. Yes the person elected has >50% of the electorate vote but may have <50% of the votes. Go figure. Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 11:01 -0500, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Well, for what is arguably the most important vote in the USA, the presidential election, your statement can be misleading/confusing. The extremely stupid system in the USA, allots electoral votes to a candidate. Having sufficient electoral votes to win the presidency does not imply that the person elected president actually won the majority of votes. Yes the person elected has >50% of the electorate vote but may have <50% of the votes. Go figure.
Robert
Shhh... We don't want the rest of the world noticing just how dysfunctional our voting system is in the U.S. Up until now... NO ONE has ever noticed and thought it was working just perfectly. You just let the cat out of the bag! :-) Bryen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Am 20.12.2012 23:50, schrieb Jim Henderson:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:53:11 -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
I'm not, because statistically when you have a larger number of candidates than 2, it's likely the winner will have < 50% of the vote.
I thought so as well in the first moment, then I remembered that every voter hat 2 votes, so it is not that easy (I actually noted this when I found out that the sum of all vote percentages was bigger than 100% :-) And yes, I feel something like STV would be useful. -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Le jeudi 20 décembre 2012, à 14:53 -0500, Greg Freemyer a écrit :
Again, I have no desire to change this year's process, but for future years an alternate solution would be my preference.
Vincent said:
"the GNOME Foundation now uses one of the STV variants (Scottish STV, according to the result page).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote for discussion on STV. There are pros and cons, obviously."
Is there software available to do the vote counting for STV?
The wikipedia page has a list :-) Interestingly, OpenSTV (which is what the GNOME Foundation uses) used to be free software, but is not anymore. I guess it's possible to find version 1.7 which was the last one to be GPL-2.0+.
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
I think it would have been hard to have a winner with more than 50% with so many candidates. That being said, I wouldn't mind a change to another voting method, as long as it's still simple for the voters (and relatively simple for the election committee). Cheers, Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Christian Boltz <cb@cboltz.de> wrote:
Hello,
Am Montag, 17. Dezember 2012 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
Bryen, I'm curious what the vote totals were. Not so much which candidate got what, but how the votes were spread out.
ie. Total votes: nnn cast Candidate #1: x votes #2: y votes etc.
The election results are public on connect:
https://connect.opensuse.org/pg/polls/read/digitaltomm/42100/opensuse-board-...
Thanks,
That does indeed show my concern. The two winners only had 36% and 31% of the voters vote for them. I assume that's because such a big selection of truly good candidates.
Or lack of genuine distinction between them.
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
Perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel bothered by this? -- Per Jessen, Zürich (5.5°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free DNS hosting, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Per Jessen <per@computer.org> wrote:
Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Christian Boltz <cb@cboltz.de> wrote:
Hello,
Am Montag, 17. Dezember 2012 schrieb Greg Freemyer:
Bryen, I'm curious what the vote totals were. Not so much which candidate got what, but how the votes were spread out.
ie. Total votes: nnn cast Candidate #1: x votes #2: y votes etc.
The election results are public on connect:
https://connect.opensuse.org/pg/polls/read/digitaltomm/42100/opensuse-board-...
Thanks,
That does indeed show my concern. The two winners only had 36% and 31% of the voters vote for them. I assume that's because such a big selection of truly good candidates.
Or lack of genuine distinction between them.
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
Perhaps you can elaborate on why you feel bothered by this?
Part of it I'm sure is cultural. I've spent my entire voting life in a state that requires 50% to win an election. The other part is the "lack of distinction" issue you bring up. It can cause an un-popular candidate to win. Assume in this case one of the candidates had a controversial platform that 32% of the members supported, but the other 7 candidates shared a non-distinct platform. Further assume that the other 68% of members truly disliked the controversial platform. With the current method, votes from 32% of the members would have won a seat on the board for the person with a controversial platform. With a STV method and assuming the 68% spread their votes across the other 7 candidates, the end result would be 2 of the candidates with non-distinct platforms would win. In the USA, the solution to the above was to form parties based around the candidates platforms, then have each party have a preliminary vote to elect the "one" candidate to run to represent the platform. Then here in georgia, we have run-offs at both the preliminary and final election. Thus it can take 4 visits to the polling place to fully participate in a single election. We clearly don't want to follow that model. I had not heard of the STV method a week ago, so I don't know where it comes from, but it seems like a simple and elegant solution to my concern, and it keeps the effort required of the voter to a minimum. Greg -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/21/2012 02:50 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
With the current method, votes from 32% of the members would have won a seat on the board for the person with a controversial platform.
I have two votes (one for each candidate) - how is the 32 % counted and calculated? Is that 32 % of all votes? in that case a single candidate could only received 50 % of the votes if everybody gave his two votes. Please have a look at the numbers, with the two votes voting is a bit more complicated. If there are 100 people that can vote, there can be between 100 and 200 legit votes - but a single candidate can only get up to 100 votes (50 % of the total maximal 200). Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.com> wrote:
On 12/21/2012 02:50 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
With the current method, votes from 32% of the members would have won a seat on the board for the person with a controversial platform.
I have two votes (one for each candidate) - how is the 32 % counted and
calculated?
Is that 32 % of all votes? in that case a single candidate could only received 50 % of the votes if everybody gave his two votes.
Please have a look at the numbers, with the two votes voting is a bit more complicated. If there are 100 people that can vote, there can be between 100 and 200 legit votes - but a single candidate can only get up to 100 votes (50 % of the total maximal 200).
Andreas
Your assumption is not correct. The total sum of the vote percentages is near 200%. Thus, it appears the current results were based on the percentage of voters voting for a specific candidate, so in this race the second place winner had 31% of the voters vote for him. Greg -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/21/2012 03:25 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.com> wrote:
On 12/21/2012 02:50 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
With the current method, votes from 32% of the members would have won a seat on the board for the person with a controversial platform.
I have two votes (one for each candidate) - how is the 32 % counted and
calculated?
Is that 32 % of all votes? in that case a single candidate could only received 50 % of the votes if everybody gave his two votes.
Please have a look at the numbers, with the two votes voting is a bit more complicated. If there are 100 people that can vote, there can be between 100 and 200 legit votes - but a single candidate can only get up to 100 votes (50 % of the total maximal 200).
Andreas
Your assumption is not correct.
The total sum of the vote percentages is near 200%.
Thus, it appears the current results were based on the percentage of voters voting for a specific candidate, so in this race the second place winner had 31% of the voters vote for him.
Yeah, you're right, it's percentage of voters. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Greg, On Thursday 20 December 2012 14:53:11 Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
What concerns me more is that the number of members voting is going down drastically. In 2010 we had 41.2% of the members voting In 2011 we had 40.8% of the members voting In 2012 we had 29.2% of the members voting. This year we lost almost 12% of our voting members. The question is why ? According to c.o.o, we have 534 Community Members. One can ask if these are all active members, but it seems that either the number of our active members is shrinking, members are somehow fed up with the election process or that this year despite the big number of candidates members rather not vote as that it is not possible to cast blank votes (no candidate). So before we change the Election model into something else (and I would appreciate if we could also have a look at voting models that are used in Europe/Asia and not only basing ourselves on American models), we should improve the current election process to make sure that we are giving all possible choices to our members so that we can see an increase in the voting members. If the majority of the members would cast a blank vote, then this would also be a strong signal that none of the candidates is found suitable. Regards Raymond -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Raymond Wooninck wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Thursday 20 December 2012 14:53:11 Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
What concerns me more is that the number of members voting is going down drastically.
In 2010 we had 41.2% of the members voting In 2011 we had 40.8% of the members voting In 2012 we had 29.2% of the members voting.
This year we lost almost 12% of our voting members. The question is why ?
Because of the invisibility of the board and lack of interest. I think the latter is partially due to the former.
According to c.o.o, we have 534 Community Members. One can ask if these are all active members, but it seems that either the number of our active members is shrinking, members are somehow fed up with the election process or that this year despite the big number of candidates members rather not vote as that it is not possible to cast blank votes (no candidate). So before we change the Election model into something else (and I would appreciate if we could also have a look at voting models that are used in Europe/Asia and not only basing ourselves on American models),
The STV model that was proposed is used in Australia, I think. Besides, to start with, we ought to discuss if anything is actually wrong with the current model. For instance, what is the problem with an elected board member having received less than 50% of the votes? It is not at all unusual for prime ministers in continental Europe to have received less than 50% of the votes. (not an optimal comparison, but still).
we should improve the current election process to make sure that we are giving all possible choices to our members so that we can see an increase in the voting members.
You seem to be thinking that the election process is causing people not to vote? I don't think that is the problem at all. I mean, can anyone really imagine interested members going to the election page, then turning in away in disgust: "I really don't like that election process" ? Also, if the process was really an issue, we would surely have had much more discussion about it before the election. Some Swiss referendums have very low participation, some very high. It depends entirely on the topic. If we want more vote(r)s, we need to present topics that people are interested in. In our case, the "topic" is the Board.
If the majority of the members would cast a blank vote, then this would also be a strong signal that none of the candidates is found suitable.
Well, that is one genuine issue with the process - I've asked about a "None of the above" option for the last two elections. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (5.9°C) http://www.dns24.ch/ - free DNS hosting, made in Switzerland. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Per, On Friday 21 December 2012 11:10:53 Per Jessen wrote:
Because of the invisibility of the board and lack of interest. I think the latter is partially due to the former.
This could indeed be the case. Especially when I look at the programs of each candidate, then the invisibility of the board was a major topic.
The STV model that was proposed is used in Australia, I think. Besides, to start with, we ought to discuss if anything is actually wrong with the current model. For instance, what is the problem with an elected board member having received less than 50% of the votes? It is not at all unusual for prime ministers in continental Europe to have received less than 50% of the votes. (not an optimal comparison, but still).
I agree :-) I don't see any problems with the current model, but it seems that some of our community members would like to see a different model.
we should improve the current election process to make sure that we are giving all possible choices to our members so that we can see an increase in the voting members.
You seem to be thinking that the election process is causing people not to vote? I don't think that is the problem at all. I mean, can anyone really imagine interested members going to the election page, then turning in away in disgust: "I really don't like that election process" ? Also, if the process was really an issue, we would surely have had much more discussion about it before the election.
No, you misunderstood me, but maybe I was not clear enough. As you already indicated the current election process does not support all the choices a voter would like to see. I would like to improve the current process by making sure that all options are there. Maybe at this moment a lot of the voters didn't like any of the candidates and therefore didn't vote. Perhaps with a "Blank Vote or None of the above" we would have seen a higher number of people actually casting a vote and the percentages could have been different. If we have a lot of people voting blank, then there could be an issue that the candidates are seen as "not good enough". If we still see a low voting rate, then we know that the topic itself is no longer interesting. Regards Raymond -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Raymond, Am Freitag, 21. Dezember 2012, 10:36:10 schrieb Raymond Wooninck:
Hi Greg,
On Thursday 20 December 2012 14:53:11 Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
What concerns me more is that the number of members voting is going down drastically.
In 2010 we had 41.2% of the members voting In 2011 we had 40.8% of the members voting In 2012 we had 29.2% of the members voting.
This year we lost almost 12% of our voting members. The question is why ?
For me, this is also a very serious question.
According to c.o.o, we have 534 Community Members. One can ask if these are all active members, but it seems that either the number of our active members is shrinking, members are somehow fed up with the election process or that this year despite the big number of candidates members rather not vote as that it is not possible to cast blank votes (no candidate).
At first we should try to ask the nonvoter wy they didn´t vote.. Second: At the same way the openSUSE Membership officials team checks the contributions to the openSUSE project before selecting someone to be a member, they should check the members again. Than we get the answer if the number of contributers is shrinking or if some members don´t contribure anymore. We had this dicussion already.
So before we change the Election model into something else (and I would appreciate if we could also have a look at voting models that are used in Europe/Asia and not only basing ourselves on American models), we should improve the current election process to make sure that we are giving all possible choices to our members so that we can see an increase in the voting members. If the majority of the members would cast a blank vote, then this would also be a strong signal that none of the candidates is found suitable.
For me the voting model is OK. We are not pliticians. Therefore the rules should stay simple. Best regards Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Wolfgang Hahnl <slughorn@opensuse.org> wrote:
Hi Raymond,
Am Freitag, 21. Dezember 2012, 10:36:10 schrieb Raymond Wooninck:
Hi Greg,
On Thursday 20 December 2012 14:53:11 Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
What concerns me more is that the number of members voting is going down drastically.
In 2010 we had 41.2% of the members voting In 2011 we had 40.8% of the members voting In 2012 we had 29.2% of the members voting.
This year we lost almost 12% of our voting members. The question is why ?
For me, this is also a very serious question.
I almost didn't vote. I went and looked at the candidates and the platforms and was a bit overwhelmed by their overall quality. There were numerous I wanted to vote for. None that I hated. I don't know if a different voting method (stv?) would have made me more comfortable or not. I suspect ranking the 8 candidates by preference would have let me to seperate them into my top, middle, and bottom candidates, whereas only being able to select 2 felt like I was slighting other candidates I liked. Greg -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On 12/21/2012 10:36 AM, Raymond Wooninck wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Thursday 20 December 2012 14:53:11 Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
What concerns me more is that the number of members voting is going down drastically.
In 2010 we had 41.2% of the members voting In 2011 we had 40.8% of the members voting In 2012 we had 29.2% of the members voting.
This year we lost almost 12% of our voting members. The question is why ? According to c.o.o, we have 534 Community Members. One can ask if these are all active members, but it seems that either the number of our active members is shrinking, members are somehow fed up with the election process or that this year despite the big number of candidates members rather not vote as that it is not possible to cast blank votes (no candidate).
I know there are some members that have left the community - which is a natural step. Some might have changed jobs, died etc. The question is to how many members does this apply, I'll doubt there's a single reason. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hello Andreas, Am Freitag, 21. Dezember 2012, 13:24:32 schrieb Andreas Jaeger:
On 12/21/2012 10:36 AM, Raymond Wooninck wrote:
Hi Greg,
On Thursday 20 December 2012 14:53:11 Greg Freemyer wrote:
Also, am I the only one bothered by winners having less than 50%? If so, we can leave it as it is.
What concerns me more is that the number of members voting is going down drastically.
In 2010 we had 41.2% of the members voting In 2011 we had 40.8% of the members voting In 2012 we had 29.2% of the members voting.
This year we lost almost 12% of our voting members. The question is why ? According to c.o.o, we have 534 Community Members. One can ask if these are all active members, but it seems that either the number of our active members is shrinking, members are somehow fed up with the election process or that this year despite the big number of candidates members rather not vote as that it is not possible to cast blank votes (no candidate).
I know there are some members that have left the community - which is a natural step. Some might have changed jobs, died etc.
If you or the board knows that, why is it so difficult to delete them from membership? If I´m devorced than I´m not married anymore. Kind regards Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon 17 Dec 2012 07:59:54 AM CST, Bryen M Yunashko wrote: <snip>
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively. <snip>
Hi Congratulations Raymond and Robert :) -- Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890) openSUSE 12.2 (x86_64) Kernel 3.4.11-2.16-desktop up 1 day 12:02, 4 users, load average: 0.05, 0.24, 0.22 CPU Intel i5 CPU M520@2.40GHz | Intel Arrandale GPU -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Am 17.12.2012 14:59, schrieb Bryen M Yunashko:
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively.
Congratulations, I'm very satisfied with that result :-) Best regards, Stefan -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@googlemail.com> wrote:
Am 17.12.2012 14:59, schrieb Bryen M Yunashko:
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively.
Congratulations, I'm very satisfied with that result :-)
Best regards,
Stefan -- Stefan Seyfried "If your lighter runs out of fluid or flint and stops making fire, and you can't be bothered to figure out about lighter fluid or flint, that is not Zippo's fault." -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Congrads guys. -- Terror PUP a.k.a Chuck "PUP" Payne (678) 636-9678 ----------------------------------------- Discover it! Enjoy it! Share it! openSUSE Linux. ----------------------------------------- openSUSE -- en.opensuse.org/User:Terrorpup openSUSE Ambassador/openSUSE Member Community Manager -- Southeast Linux Foundation (SELF) skype,twiiter,identica,friendfeed -- terrorpup freenode(irc) --terrorpup/lupinstein Register Linux Userid: 155363 Have you tried SUSE Studio? Need to create a Live CD, an app you want to package and distribute , or create your own linux distro. Give SUSE Studio a try. www.susestudio.com. See you at Southeast Linux Fest, June 8-10, 2012 in Charlotte, NC. www.southeastlinuxfest.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:59:54 -0600, Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively.
Congrats! Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Congratulation guys. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, Le lundi 17 décembre 2012, à 07:59 -0600, Bryen M Yunashko a écrit :
As of 23:00 UTC on 16 December, 2012, the openSUSE Project’s members completed the Fifth election of the openSUSE Board. At stake were two seats of the five electable seats. With 8 candidates, the community definitely had a broad choice of qualified candidates to choose from.
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively. They will join the openSUSE Board on January 9th during the transitional meeting of the regularly scheduled Project meeting heldon the Freenode IRC Channel at 17:00 UTC.
Thanks Izabel, Bryen and Thomas for your work on the elections: at least from my perspective, this all went very smoothly! Also big thanks to the eight candidates that were running for a seat: we were quite lucky to have so many good candidates, and I do hope the six non-elected candidates will run next year! Raymond and Robert: welcome to the board :-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
2012/12/17 Bryen M Yunashko <suserocks@bryen.com>:
As of 23:00 UTC on 16 December, 2012, the openSUSE Project’s members completed the Fifth election of the openSUSE Board. At stake were two seats of the five electable seats. With 8 candidates, the community definitely had a broad choice of qualified candidates to choose from.
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively. They will join the openSUSE Board on January 9th during the transitional meeting of the regularly scheduled Project meeting heldon the Freenode IRC Channel at 17:00 UTC.
The Election Officials would like to congratulate all of thecandidates for a great campaign season. These candidates included Matt Barringer, Richard Brown, Carl Fletcher, Manu Gupta, Chuck Payne and Stefan Seyfried. All of these candidates demonstrated a commitment to the Project and exemplified the Guiding Principles which the Project, as a whole, is founded upon.
We join the rest of the community in looking forward to an exciting year to come as the new Board embarks on new initiatives and directions. And we thank the community for giving us the opportunity to serve as members of the election committee.
Sincerely, The openSUSE Election Committee
- Izabel Valverde - Thomas Schmidt - Bryen M Yunashko
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Congatulations guys I imagine this was a tough 'fight' since all candidates had something to say, I wish you all the best and I am anxious to see you in action since I am pretty sure you will make a change. It is a crucial time for the openSUSE Project and many things need to be done so it is time for work :) Kostas -- --- \m/ --- http://opensuse.gr http://os-el.gr http://amb.opensuse.gr http://www.kde.gr http://warlordfff.tk --- \m/ --- me I am not I --- \m/ --- Time travel is possible, you just need to know the right aliens -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, congratulations to Raymond and Robert. Also thanks to those who applied. And last but not least to those who left the Board. I am sure we will have a very productive cooperation period. On Monday, December 17, 2012 07:59:54 AM Bryen M Yunashko wrote:
As of 23:00 UTC on 16 December, 2012, the openSUSE Project’s members completed the Fifth election of the openSUSE Board. At stake were two seats of the five electable seats. With 8 candidates, the community definitely had a broad choice of qualified candidates to choose from.
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively. They will join the openSUSE Board on January 9th during the transitional meeting of the regularly scheduled Project meeting heldon the Freenode IRC Channel at 17:00 UTC.
The Election Officials would like to congratulate all of thecandidates for a great campaign season. These candidates included Matt Barringer, Richard Brown, Carl Fletcher, Manu Gupta, Chuck Payne and Stefan Seyfried. All of these candidates demonstrated a commitment to the Project and exemplified the Guiding Principles which the Project, as a whole, is founded upon.
We join the rest of the community in looking forward to an exciting year to come as the new Board embarks on new initiatives and directions. And we thank the community for giving us the opportunity to serve as members of the election committee.
Sincerely, The openSUSE Election Committee
- Izabel Valverde - Thomas Schmidt - Bryen M Yunashko -- Agustin Benito Bethencourt openSUSE Team Lead at SUSE abebe@suse.com
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
Hello Geekos congratulations to Raymond and Robert also from me.. Wolfgang openSUSE Member DE-Wiki-Team Am Montag, 17. Dezember 2012, 07:59:54 schrieb Bryen M Yunashko:
As of 23:00 UTC on 16 December, 2012, the openSUSE Project’s members completed the Fifth election of the openSUSE Board. At stake were two seats of the five electable seats. With 8 candidates, the community definitely had a broad choice of qualified candidates to choose from.
In the end, the two top vote-getters were Raymond Wooninck (tittiacoke) and Robert Schweikert, (robjo) respectively. They will join the openSUSE Board on January 9th during the transitional meeting of the regularly scheduled Project meeting heldon the Freenode IRC Channel at 17:00 UTC.
The Election Officials would like to congratulate all of thecandidates for a great campaign season. These candidates included Matt Barringer, Richard Brown, Carl Fletcher, Manu Gupta, Chuck Payne and Stefan Seyfried. All of these candidates demonstrated a commitment to the Project and exemplified the Guiding Principles which the Project, as a whole, is founded upon.
We join the rest of the community in looking forward to an exciting year to come as the new Board embarks on new initiatives and directions. And we thank the community for giving us the opportunity to serve as members of the election committee.
Sincerely, The openSUSE Election Committee
- Izabel Valverde - Thomas Schmidt - Bryen M Yunashko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org
participants (18)
-
Agustin Benito Bethencourt -
Andreas Jaeger -
Bryen M Yunashko -
Christian Boltz -
Chuck Payne -
Efstathios Iosifidis -
Greg Freemyer -
Jim Henderson -
Kostas Koudaras -
Malcolm -
Pascal Bleser -
Per Jessen -
Raymond Wooninck -
Rick Chung -
Robert Schweikert -
Stefan Seyfried -
Vincent Untz -
Wolfgang Hahnl