Last years election of seats for the openSUSE board showed that our election rules are not complete. So, before the elections this year start, I propose that we refine the rules and like to start with this post a discussion on how to change them.
I see the following situations not handled:
* Less candidates than seats for a category (Novell/non-Novell) * Equal number of candidates and open seats for a category (Novell/non- Novell) * a board member resigning * a board member disappearing and not engaging in the board * a board member getting hired by Novell or leaves Novell
We also need to clarify when the new board constitutes.
We should have a light weight process that is not overly complex and results in endless votes. We vote for people that volunteer their time for the openSUSE project and don’t get any material benefits for it. So, let’s keep that in mind when discussing alternatives.
Also, currently the board has five elected seats (three non-Novell and two Novell) that get elected, so it could be that we have enough non-Novell candidates but not enough Novell ones etc. To make this text easier, I will not mention this everytime.
I have a first proposal before discussing the situations: The board should be allowed to appoint people to board seats until the next board constitutes.
The alternative would be to have a special election when a seat becomes empty. I fear that this just overly complicates the process.
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get appointed by the board. Appointed seats are only appointed until the next election. The board can appoint also non-Novell folks on Novell seats and vice-versa.
I suggest also to not only have self-nominations but that people can nominate others – and the election officials will then ask the nominated person whether they stand up for election.
New rule: Nominations: The election officials will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election officials will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they stand for election. Insufficient Nominations:
This is a sorry state since it means that not enough openSUSE members are willing to volunteer for the board. In that case, the board should appoint people to join the board and it can put Novell employees on non-Novell seats and vice-versa. With the next election, the seat distribution would be fixed again.
New rule: 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.
The question remains what to do with the candidates that volunteer, let’s handle them in the next case: Equal number of candidates and seats
One option here is to just declare the candidates as new board members. This would be the simplest process.
In other situations, you have a vote of confidence where people give a yes/no vote for the candidates.
One suggestion is a yes/no/abstain vote for the candidates and a candidate needs more yes than no votes to be elected. If somebody does not get elected, the seat gets appointed (see insufficient nominations). Since it could happen that one category has enough nominations but not the other, the voting would be different for both categories and this makes the whole process complicated. So, I suggest to change the rule to have just more than 50 per cent yes votes.
New rule: 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. Board member resigning
The board should appoint somebody.
New rule: Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new board member. Removal of board member
This is something that’s not covered yet as well. What happens if a member disappears virtually? Or what if a board member goes wild?
New rule: 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. Getting hired by Novell or leaves Novell
The elected seats are currently either Novell employee seats or non-Novell employee seats. Should a board member resign if he gets fired or hired by Novell? IMO the board should stay functional, the seat was elected. So, again let’s use a pragmatic approach:
New rule: Change of employment: The board member will continue to stay in the board until the end of the term and the next election the distribution of seats gets fixed again. Constitution
There was some confusion when the new term starts, let’s rectify it.
New rule: 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. Amendment
How can we change the rules? Should the election officials be in charge of them or the board itself? As member of the election officials for the 2009 board election, I propose this change but I suggest that anybody can propose changes but that the board has the final say on them.
New rule: Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
So, once there’s consensus about my changes, I propose that the board approves them as stated in the Changes of elections. Conclusion
The current openSUSE Board election rules are available in the wiki.
Did I miss any case in the elections? What would you differently than I proposed?
Btw. I read the Fedora guidelines on Board elections and also read also what Jono Bacon wrote in “The Art of community management” on governance. Published also via: http://lizards.opensuse.org/2010/08/25/revising-the-board-election-rules/
Andreas
* Andreas Jaeger aj@novell.com [08-25-10 09:56]:
Last years election of seats for the openSUSE board showed that our election rules are not complete. So, before the elections this year start, I propose that we refine the rules and like to start with this post a discussion on how to change them.
I see the following situations not handled:
Your proposed changes and redefinitions all sound well considered and rational. I see no arguments but some may question the balance on changes of employement and/or loss and replacement of a member with insufficient candidates. I propose they be accepted as is. Any situations that arise in the future can be considered at that time.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Andreas Jaeger aj@novell.com wrote:
Last years election of seats for the openSUSE board showed that our election rules are not complete. So, before the elections this year start, I propose that we refine the rules and like to start with this post a discussion on how to change them.
I see the following situations not handled:
* Less candidates than seats for a category (Novell/non-Novell) * Equal number of candidates and open seats for a category (Novell/non- Novell) * a board member resigning * a board member disappearing and not engaging in the board * a board member getting hired by Novell or leaves Novell
We also need to clarify when the new board constitutes.
We should have a light weight process that is not overly complex and results in endless votes. We vote for people that volunteer their time for the openSUSE project and don’t get any material benefits for it. So, let’s keep that in mind when discussing alternatives.
Also, currently the board has five elected seats (three non-Novell and two Novell) that get elected, so it could be that we have enough non-Novell candidates but not enough Novell ones etc. To make this text easier, I will not mention this everytime.
I have a first proposal before discussing the situations: The board should be allowed to appoint people to board seats until the next board constitutes.
The alternative would be to have a special election when a seat becomes empty. I fear that this just overly complicates the process.
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get appointed by the board. Appointed seats are only appointed until the next election. The board can appoint also non-Novell folks on Novell seats and vice-versa.
I suggest also to not only have self-nominations but that people can nominate others – and the election officials will then ask the nominated person whether they stand up for election.
New rule: Nominations: The election officials will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election officials will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they stand for election. Insufficient Nominations:
This is a sorry state since it means that not enough openSUSE members are willing to volunteer for the board. In that case, the board should appoint people to join the board and it can put Novell employees on non-Novell seats and vice-versa. With the next election, the seat distribution would be fixed again.
New rule: 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.
The question remains what to do with the candidates that volunteer, let’s handle them in the next case: Equal number of candidates and seats
One option here is to just declare the candidates as new board members. This would be the simplest process.
In other situations, you have a vote of confidence where people give a yes/no vote for the candidates.
One suggestion is a yes/no/abstain vote for the candidates and a candidate needs more yes than no votes to be elected. If somebody does not get elected, the seat gets appointed (see insufficient nominations). Since it could happen that one category has enough nominations but not the other, the voting would be different for both categories and this makes the whole process complicated. So, I suggest to change the rule to have just more than 50 per cent yes votes.
New rule: 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. Board member resigning
The board should appoint somebody.
New rule: Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new board member. Removal of board member
This is something that’s not covered yet as well. What happens if a member disappears virtually? Or what if a board member goes wild?
New rule: 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. Getting hired by Novell or leaves Novell
The elected seats are currently either Novell employee seats or non-Novell employee seats. Should a board member resign if he gets fired or hired by Novell? IMO the board should stay functional, the seat was elected. So, again let’s use a pragmatic approach:
New rule: Change of employment: The board member will continue to stay in the board until the end of the term and the next election the distribution of seats gets fixed again. Constitution
There was some confusion when the new term starts, let’s rectify it.
New rule: 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. Amendment
How can we change the rules? Should the election officials be in charge of them or the board itself? As member of the election officials for the 2009 board election, I propose this change but I suggest that anybody can propose changes but that the board has the final say on them.
New rule: Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
So, once there’s consensus about my changes, I propose that the board approves them as stated in the Changes of elections. Conclusion
The current openSUSE Board election rules are available in the wiki.
Did I miss any case in the elections? What would you differently than I proposed?
Btw. I read the Fedora guidelines on Board elections and also read also what Jono Bacon wrote in “The Art of community management” on governance. Published also via: http://lizards.opensuse.org/2010/08/25/revising-the-board-election-rules/
Andreas
Thinking of board rules:
1) Is the board happy having just a a chairman and 5 uncategorized members?
In my experience even small board have 3 or 4 officers. That helps everyone know what kind of specific duties they may have. ie. The Secretary knows they are responsible for keeping the minutes if its a verbal meeting, etc.
Especially if this board will also be the board of the opensuse foundation, it will need a treasurer. How will that be determined? Voted by the opensuse members, or by the board members themselves. If by the board members, will it be done at the first board meeting after each annual meeting? etc.
2) I think you should consider an appointed replacement fulfilling the original 2 year term, not just until the next annual election. Otherwise, due to a single sickness, etc. you could have:
person 1 for 6 months via normal election, person 2 for 6 months via appointment, person 3 for 12 months via special election.
That's too much turmoil if it can be avoided.
Greg
Le 25/08/2010 15:54, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get appointed by the board.
what do you mean by "appointment"? in french this translate by "rendez-vous"?
If I guess from the whole post, you mean "designate". The board (what board?) should designate some of the board members? and if you have only one remaining board memember, this one will designate all the others?
designations, or cooptation can be accepted on large groups, for a small number of people and a small time period, but on a five member group... I guess no
you should rewrite your proposition (sorry) by rewriting and publishing the whole rules. I can't really understand how your proposal cope with the present rules.
just some thought:
* if ever we don't have enough candidates, that mean to position is not attractive and some important things have to be rethinked (no patch will do any good)
* it's very frequent to have the same number of candidates than places, because most candidate are not really wanting the duty but simply wanting to help and give easily they voice to an other people. This is not necerrely bad.
* a yes/no vote don't make any good: what do you do if evry body have all yes or all no?
jdd
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they
get
appointed by the board.
what do you mean by "appointment"? in french this translate by "rendez-vous"?
Appointment has several meanings http://www.visuwords.com/?word=appointment
Being appointed to a job or role is what is meant here.
David
Le 25/08/2010 19:21, Administrator a écrit :
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they
get
appointed by the board.
what do you mean by "appointment"? in french this translate by "rendez-vous"?
Appointment has several meanings http://www.visuwords.com/?word=appointment
Being appointed to a job or role is what is meant here.
David
for money??
jdd
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 17:47:49 Greg Freemyer wrote:
[...] 2) I think you should consider an appointed replacement fulfilling the original 2 year term, not just until the next annual election. Otherwise, due to a single sickness, etc. you could have:
person 1 for 6 months via normal election, person 2 for 6 months via appointment, person 3 for 12 months via special election.
That's too much turmoil if it can be avoided.
I suggest that the person appointed stands up for election for the seat and thus gets reconfirmed by the community on this to avoid this. Having the confirmation by the openSUSE members might be important,
Andreas
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 20:19:05 jdd wrote:
Le 25/08/2010 19:21, Administrator a écrit :
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they
get
appointed by the board.
what do you mean by "appointment"? in french this translate by "rendez-vous"?
Appointment has several meanings http://www.visuwords.com/?word=appointment
Being appointed to a job or role is what is meant here.
David
for money??
We speak about the openSUSE board and they do not get money,
Andreas
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 18:49:44 jdd wrote:
Le 25/08/2010 15:54, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get appointed by the board.
what do you mean by "appointment"? in french this translate by "rendez-vous"?
If I guess from the whole post, you mean "designate". The board (what board?) should designate some of the board members? and if you have
The openSUSE board.
only one remaining board memember, this one will designate all the others?
designations, or cooptation can be accepted on large groups, for a small number of people and a small time period, but on a five member group... I guess no
It's for at most a year - until the next electoin.
you should rewrite your proposition (sorry) by rewriting and publishing the whole rules. I can't really understand how your proposal cope with the present rules.
It's in addition to the existing ones, no need to change any of the existing ones at all. The blog post contains a link to the current ones.
just some thought:
- if ever we don't have enough candidates, that mean to position is
not attractive and some important things have to be rethinked (no patch will do any good)
Yes, it is - but still you want to move forward as well.
- it's very frequent to have the same number of candidates than
places, because most candidate are not really wanting the duty but simply wanting to help and give easily they voice to an other people. This is not necerrely bad.
- a yes/no vote don't make any good: what do you do if evry body have
all yes or all no?
You mean if two people get the same number of votes? Let's check the rules for that...
Andreas
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Andreas Jaeger aj@novell.com wrote:
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 17:47:49 Greg Freemyer wrote:
[...] 2) I think you should consider an appointed replacement fulfilling the original 2 year term, not just until the next annual election. Otherwise, due to a single sickness, etc. you could have:
person 1 for 6 months via normal election, person 2 for 6 months via appointment, person 3 for 12 months via special election.
That's too much turmoil if it can be avoided.
I suggest that the person appointed stands up for election for the seat and thus gets reconfirmed by the community on this to avoid this. Having the confirmation by the openSUSE members might be important,
Are you saying: have the board name a replacement, then immediately have a yes / no vote of the members? If yes, they stand in until the end of the 2-year term.
That seems logical to me.
Greg
I have a long experience of writing associations status, so I try to make things clear.
I don't have a lizard acount and don't know how to have one, so I wrote the proposal here on my own web site (and copy below)
http://dodin.org/wiki/index.php?n=Doc.OpenSUSEBoard
Mains problems are: we can't afford to have more than one appointed person on 5 board members! We can't have a member removed because his attitude don't please the other members.
we have to elect each year one noivell and one non novell member. if we can't find at least two candidates, we can stop making openSUSE...
The proposal below include a copy of the present rules. I'm not english native, so forgive the bad langage and feel free to fix the typos and grammar errors :-(
Board elections rules (jdd proposal, see also http://lizards.opensuse.org/2010/08/25/revising-the-board-election-rules/ and http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election).
The election of the openSUSE Board will be done using the following 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.
old rule: * "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."
small change: * The openSUSE board election period is two years and every year one novell and one non novell member 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. The chairman, nominated by Novell is changed only and when Novell wants so.
* 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.
Handling of special cases:
* Running board is allowed to appoint one new member and one only in the following situations. 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. A Novell emmloyee have to be replaced by a Novell employee, and same applies to community member.
* On the following election, the appointed member is replaced by an elected one. A "tirage au sort" (lottery?) designs the elected people that are elected for 1 or 2 years
Appointment situations are: resignation of a member, removal of a member.
Any member can resignate at will, but then he will not be allowed to be candidate for the next election.
A Board member may be subject to removal only in case of absence of participation of three consecutive meetings or complete lost of contact. The board have to publish all the work done to try to solve the problem. A three month delay will be spent between the first notification of the problem and the board vote. the Board member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of the Board.
Novell employement.
Novell employment have to be valid at the vote date. Any change wont have effect on the board membership situation.
* 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.
* Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where at least 3 members approve including the chairperson.
(NB: 2/3 of 5 is not good :-)
Comments:
It's better to have an equal number of seats and keep normal vote than special vote and appointment. Appointment is negation of democracy and have to be kept to a bare minimum.
* Other possible rule: If The board need to make an appointment, he have to first ask the non elected candidate of the previous election.
jdd
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 22:21:46 Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Andreas Jaeger aj@novell.com wrote:
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 17:47:49 Greg Freemyer wrote:
[...] 2) I think you should consider an appointed replacement fulfilling the original 2 year term, not just until the next annual election. Otherwise, due to a single sickness, etc. you could have:
person 1 for 6 months via normal election, person 2 for 6 months via appointment, person 3 for 12 months via special election.
That's too much turmoil if it can be avoided.
I suggest that the person appointed stands up for election for the seat and thus gets reconfirmed by the community on this to avoid this. Having the confirmation by the openSUSE members might be important,
Are you saying: have the board name a replacement, then immediately have a yes / no vote of the members? If yes, they stand in until the end of the 2-year term.
That seems logical to me.
What I said is: The board names the replacement and at the next election that person can stand up for election and get voted for.
Let's be pragmatic: We don't need to hold several elections - if needed - during the year. Once a year is enough,
Andreas
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 23:08:52 jdd wrote:
old rule:
- "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."
small change:
- The openSUSE board election period is two years and every year one
novell and one non novell member 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. The chairman, nominated by Novell is changed only and when Novell wants so.
I don't understand this. We have three Non-Novell and two Novell folks, it just won't work out - you would enlarge the period since you only elect one of the three Non-Novell seats every year,
Andreas
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 23:08:52 jdd wrote:
I have a long experience of writing associations status, so I try to make things clear.
Thanks!
I don't have a lizard acount and don't know how to have one, so I wrote the proposal here on my own web site (and copy below)
http://dodin.org/wiki/index.php?n=Doc.OpenSUSEBoard
Mains problems are: we can't afford to have more than one appointed person on 5 board members! We can't have a member removed because his attitude don't please the other members.
5 elected seats plus chairperson makes 6.
Both GNOME and Fedora have some provisions in their rules if a member goes wild. What should be done in such cases for openSUSE? I'm speaking of serious misconduct here.
we have to elect each year one noivell and one non novell member. if we can't find at least two candidates, we can stop making openSUSE...
The proposal below include a copy of the present rules. I'm not english native, so forgive the bad langage and feel free to fix the typos and grammar errors :-(
No problem at all!
Board elections rules (jdd proposal, see also http://lizards.opensuse.org/2010/08/25/revising-the-board-election-rules/ and http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election).
The election of the openSUSE Board will be done using the following 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.
old rule:
- "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."
small change:
- The openSUSE board election period is two years and every year one
novell and one non novell member 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. The chairman, nominated by Novell is changed only and when Novell wants so.
- 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.
Handling of special cases:
- Running board is allowed to appoint one new member and one only in
the following situations. 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. A Novell emmloyee have to be replaced by a Novell employee, and same applies to community member.
Interesting idea of limiting this. What do others think?
- On the following election, the appointed member is replaced by an
elected one. A "tirage au sort" (lottery?) designs the elected people that are elected for 1 or 2 years
Ah, so basically you want to take care that each year half of the board gets elected. Yes, that is good.
Appointment situations are: resignation of a member, removal of a member.
Any member can resignate at will, but then he will not be allowed to be candidate for the next election.
A Board member may be subject to removal only in case of absence of participation of three consecutive meetings or complete lost of contact. The board have to publish all the work done to try to solve the problem. A three month delay will be spent between the first notification of the problem and the board vote. the Board member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of the Board.
Meetings are every two weeks - so 3 times absences is 6 weeks plus three months makes 4 1/2 months. Quite a long time.
I like the 3 times absence but would say "without notification" - and make the period shorter.
Novell employement.
Novell employment have to be valid at the vote date. Any change wont have effect on the board membership situation.
- 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.
- Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the
board where at least 3 members approve including the chairperson.
(NB: 2/3 of 5 is not good :-)
The board has six members ;)
Comments:
It's better to have an equal number of seats and keep normal vote than special vote and appointment. Appointment is negation of democracy and have to be kept to a bare minimum.
That's why I suggested the appointment only until the next session.
- Other possible rule: If The board need to make an appointment, he
have to first ask the non elected candidate of the previous election.
I think this is a good practice but sometimes there's a reason why somebody did not get elected ;). So, we should not force the board to do this.
Thanks a lot for your proposal, Andreas
Le 26/08/2010 11:29, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
5 elected seats plus chairperson makes 6.
sorry, I understood 4+1
jdd
Le 26/08/2010 11:18, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
- The openSUSE board election period is two years and every year one
novell and one non novell member 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. The chairman, nominated by Novell is changed only and when Novell wants so.
I don't understand this. We have three Non-Novell and two Novell folks, it just won't work out - you would enlarge the period since you only elect one of the three Non-Novell seats every year,
oh. I was thinking 3 chairman included.
anyway we already say we do one election / year, so we have to define who is renewed (2 a year, 3 the other, may be nomination of the chairman by novell the year of 2 electeds?)
jdd
On Thursday 26 August 2010 13:25:19 jdd wrote:
Le 26/08/2010 11:18, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
- The openSUSE board election period is two years and every year one
novell and one non novell member 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. The chairman, nominated by Novell is changed only and when Novell wants so.
I don't understand this. We have three Non-Novell and two Novell folks, it just won't work out - you would enlarge the period since you only elect one of the three Non-Novell seats every year,
oh. I was thinking 3 chairman included.
anyway we already say we do one election / year, so we have to define who is renewed (2 a year, 3 the other, may be nomination of the chairman by novell the year of 2 electeds?)
Yeah, goal was to elect half each year - but I fear we make it to complicated...
Currently it just happens this way and only resignation/new appointments will break it,
Andreas
Le 26/08/2010 13:34, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
Yeah, goal was to elect half each year - but I fear we make it to complicated...
Currently it just happens this way and only resignation/new appointments will break it,
yes, many groups work like this. One detail is to forgive the people who resign to be candidate next time, I have a group where many people resign just to be elected again, braking the (implicit) rule :-(
the problem is to keep an elected board., with a so small members number, appointment change too much the status of the group.
the two years/half group system allows better continuity, prevent a complete change of politics at each elections...
there are two main problem for us: * identify active member for voting (the member approval system fails, nowaday: there are not sufficient number of people to check candidates) * clearly identifing the board work. Be part of the board seems to be pretty boring and not that rewarding. We may have to find some way to make the board speaking more impressive. We have elected board members, when they speak or write, this should be important.
May be we could organise a physical meeting of the board once a year, at a worldwide openSUSE event. We need such event, and it would be nice if we could have it in sync with continental important open source meeting (RMLL, FOSDEM or some other for Europe, one in asia and one in states, on a three years round?) - but do we have the money?
jdd
On Thursday 26 August 2010 13:49:03 jdd wrote:
Le 26/08/2010 13:34, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
Yeah, goal was to elect half each year - but I fear we make it to complicated...
Currently it just happens this way and only resignation/new appointments will break it,
yes, many groups work like this. One detail is to forgive the people who resign to be candidate next time, I have a group where many people resign just to be elected again, braking the (implicit) rule :-(
the problem is to keep an elected board., with a so small members number, appointment change too much the status of the group.
Appointment to me is an exception and so far it only happened once.
the two years/half group system allows better continuity, prevent a complete change of politics at each elections...
So, let's rephrase that a bit differently...
there are two main problem for us:
- identify active member for voting (the member approval system fails,
nowaday: there are not sufficient number of people to check candidates)
You're part of the team, aren't you? What is hindering the team?
- clearly identifing the board work. Be part of the board seems to be
pretty boring and not that rewarding. We may have to find some way to make the board speaking more impressive. We have elected board members, when they speak or write, this should be important.
Yes, sure.
May be we could organise a physical meeting of the board once a year, at a worldwide openSUSE event. We need such event, and it would be nice if we could have it in sync with continental important open source meeting (RMLL, FOSDEM or some other for Europe, one in asia and one in states, on a three years round?) - but do we have the money?
We had this last year at the openSUSE conference and AFAIK it's planned again this year at the openSUSE conference.
Andreas
Le 26/08/2010 14:08, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
there are two main problem for us:
- identify active member for voting (the member approval system fails,
nowaday: there are not sufficient number of people to check candidates)
You're part of the team, aren't you? What is hindering the team?
I don't really know. I revised most of the candidates, but we need at least 4 appreciation and we don't have them. :-(
We had this last year at the openSUSE conference and AFAIK it's planned again this year at the openSUSE conference.
very good
thanks jdd
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM, jdd jdd@dodin.org wrote:
Le 26/08/2010 14:08, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
there are two main problem for us:
- identify active member for voting (the member approval system fails,
nowaday: there are not sufficient number of people to check candidates)
You're part of the team, aren't you? What is hindering the team?
I don't really know. I revised most of the candidates, but we need at least 4 appreciation and we don't have them. :-(
It's called "Summer Holiday Syndrom". Don't forget that the Approval Team successfully reviewed 150+ applications the past few months (and more to come very soon).
Regards,
R.
Le 26/08/2010 16:24, Rémy Marquis a écrit :
It's called "Summer Holiday Syndrom". Don't forget that the Approval Team successfully reviewed 150+ applications the past few months (and more to come very soon).
I'm not sure. We are very few to really revise and if not everybody votes the same, having 4 votes is nearly impossible :-( jdd
Just some thoughts on that issue.
Am 25/08/10 15:54, schrieb Andreas Jaeger:
Last years election of seats for the openSUSE board showed that our election rules are not complete. So, before the elections this year start, I propose that we refine the rules and like to start with this post a discussion on how to change them.
I see the following situations not handled:
* Less candidates than seats for a category (Novell/non-Novell) * Equal number of candidates and open seats for a category (Novell/non-Novell) * a board member resigning * a board member disappearing and not engaging in the board * a board member getting hired by Novell or leaves Novell
We also need to clarify when the new board constitutes.
We should have a light weight process that is not overly complex and results in endless votes. We vote for people that volunteer their time for the openSUSE project and don’t get any material benefits for it. So, let’s keep that in mind when discussing alternatives.
Also, currently the board has five elected seats (three non-Novell and two Novell) that get elected, so it could be that we have enough non-Novell candidates but not enough Novell ones etc. To make this text easier, I will not mention this everytime.
I have a first proposal before discussing the situations: The board should be allowed to appoint people to board seats until the next board constitutes.
The alternative would be to have a special election when a seat becomes empty. I fear that this just overly complicates the process.
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get appointed by the board. Appointed seats are only appointed until the next election. The board can appoint also non-Novell folks on Novell seats and vice-versa.
I suggest also to not only have self-nominations but that people can nominate others – and the election officials will then ask the nominated person whether they stand up for election.
Other possible variants (alternative or cummulative). I especially think it not appropriate that someone should have all the work of getting into how the board is running (technical, social non written rules, the written rules) if she or he is going to stay just for a few months.
# A earlier date for the regualar half-board elections ealier but not quite immediately (e. g.: Up to tree/six moths earlier especially if the former member leaves in 7 mouths before the next regular election) # A election for the new seat ealier but not quite immediately (e. g.: Within half a year of the leaving of the former member.) # Running the board in the time within just with the rest of the members. The vote of the missing member could be ## just leaved out ## be taken by the members form the same group (Novell/not Novell)
New rule: Nominations: The election officials will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election officials will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they stand for election.
If this is handed in a way that combines openness and not embarrassing a potential candidate or the board, this may lead to good candidates and avoiding frustrating nomination processes.
Insufficient Nominations:
This is a sorry state since it means that not enough openSUSE members are willing to volunteer for the board. In that case, the board should appoint people to join the board and it can put Novell employees on non-Novell seats and vice-versa. With the next election, the seat distribution would be fixed again.
New rule: 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.
Go on with a smaller board is not an alternative?
The question remains what to do with the candidates that volunteer, let’s handle them in the next case: Equal number of candidates and seats
One option here is to just declare the candidates as new board members. This would be the simplest process.
In other situations, you have a vote of confidence where people give a yes/no vote for the candidates.
One suggestion is a yes/no/abstain vote for the candidates and a candidate needs more yes than no votes to be elected. If somebody does not get elected, the seat gets appointed (see insufficient nominations). Since it could happen that one category has enough nominations but not the other, the voting would be different for both categories and this makes the whole process complicated. So, I suggest to change the rule to have just more than 50 per cent yes votes.
Yes. I do not think that a member that has gotten less than 50 per cent yes votes in a situation like that will have a real standing if she or he has to make a important decision.
New rule: 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.
A second election for this seat or just leaving it not be used for the comming period may be better variants.
Board member resigning
The board should appoint somebody.
New rule: Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new board member. Removal of board member
This is something that’s not covered yet as well. What happens if a member disappears virtually? Or what if a board member goes wild?
Even for the president (see: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4sidentenanklage) and the chancellor of Germany or a member of the Constitutional Cort of Germay http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bverfgg/__105.html are ways to get them moved out.
Rules for cases like that that should be there.
But I think as long as the new rules are not approved by the members of openSUSE: Something like a reverse election or just leaving the 'funny' board member formally on the board and getting she or him formally be known of the decisions that have to be - that may include the lesser risk.
New rule: 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.
Go on with a smaller board or a reelection (see above, depending on the time left) are not possible variants?
Getting hired by Novell or leaves Novell
The elected seats are currently either Novell employee seats or non-Novell employee seats. Should a board member resign if he gets fired or hired by Novell? IMO the board should stay functional, the seat was elected. So, again let’s use a pragmatic approach:
New rule: Change of employment: The board member will continue to stay in the board until the end of the term and the next election the distribution of seats gets fixed again.
An alternative would be that this would be a member with a voice but not a vote. The vote could be manged in the time being by the rest of the members from the same group (Novell/non Novell).
If all runs well, I would think of no real differences as the other members will still hear his voice.
But if it comes really to a difficult situation Novell (as the main sponsor in many ways) may still be holding their/her influence.
Constitution
There was some confusion when the new term starts, let’s rectify it.
New rule: 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. Amendment
How can we change the rules? Should the election officials be in charge of them or the board itself? As member of the election officials for the 2009 board election, I propose this change but I suggest that anybody can propose changes but that the board has the final say on them.
New rule: Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
A bit more democratic but maybe more effort taking alternative would be to set the changes into live temporarily but to make a constant decision with the voting of the new members by the openSUSE members in the same process.
So, once there’s consensus about my changes, I propose that the board approves them as stated in the Changes of elections. Conclusion
The current openSUSE Board election rules are available in the wiki.
If anyone has difficulties to find them in the "openSUSE:"-namespace, here is the link: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election#Election_rules
Did I miss any case in the elections? What would you differently than I proposed?
Btw. I read the Fedora guidelines on Board elections and also read also what Jono Bacon wrote in “The Art of community management” on governance. Published also via: http://lizards.opensuse.org/2010/08/25/revising-the-board-election-rules/
Just my humble thinking/brainstorming about that matter.
Wishing you (plural) success Martin
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:49 AM, pistazienfresser (see profile) pistazienfresser@gmx.de wrote: <snip>
I especially think it not appropriate that someone should have all the work of getting into how the board is running (technical, social non written rules, the written rules) if she or he is going to stay just for a few months.
It's not always voluntary that board members have to resign. I'm on a board where 18-months ago we elected someone. Within 6-months he had been diagnosed with Brain Cancer and died.
This was meant to be a 3-year term but in reality it was:
election: 2-years later - resign new member voted on by membership: 6-months - passed on new member appointed for final 6-months.
Our rules are appointments last until the end of the term, but if someone resigns within 60 days of a normal election, we fill the seat via election for the rest of the term.
It was very unusual but at the end of 2009, 4 of the 6 members were appointed, not elected by the membership.
My basic statement is that resignations/departures are common, so it is worth spending time addressing how it is handled.
Greg
On Thursday 26 August 2010 11:29:08 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 23:08:52 jdd wrote:
I have a long experience of writing associations status, so I try to make things clear.
Thanks!
<snip>
Handling of special cases:
- Running board is allowed to appoint one new member and one only in
the following situations. 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. A Novell emmloyee have to be replaced by a Novell employee, and same applies to community member.
Interesting idea of limiting this. What do others think?
I don't see why. Surely if there are more ppl leaving, the board (and openSUSE) is in trouble. However, to keep things running I think the other board members should be trusted to make the right decision. After all, we voted for them. Besides the board isn't THAT powerful, they can't stop us from doing what we do anyway ;-)
- On the following election, the appointed member is replaced by an
elected one. A "tirage au sort" (lottery?) designs the elected people that are elected for 1 or 2 years
Ah, so basically you want to take care that each year half of the board gets elected. Yes, that is good.
That is a short period. You do want to keep some continuity to preserve experience. I'd vote for 2 years min, 3 would be fine with me too.
Appointment situations are: resignation of a member, removal of a member.
Any member can resignate at will, but then he will not be allowed to be candidate for the next election.
A Board member may be subject to removal only in case of absence of participation of three consecutive meetings or complete lost of contact. The board have to publish all the work done to try to solve the problem. A three month delay will be spent between the first notification of the problem and the board vote. the Board member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of the Board.
Meetings are every two weeks - so 3 times absences is 6 weeks plus three months makes 4 1/2 months. Quite a long time.
I like the 3 times absence but would say "without notification" - and make the period shorter.
I don't care much about this - I would actually make it not too long too and let the board decide if they want to wait longer if something like this happens.
Hi,
Le mercredi 25 août 2010, à 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get appointed by the board. Appointed seats are only appointed until the next election. The board can appoint also non-Novell folks on Novell seats and vice-versa.
Overall, it makes sense. That's what the GNOME Foundation does too, and it works well -- it happened a few times in the last few years.
However, I don't think we should have the last sentence: the reason we have the non-Novell/Novell split on the board is to make sure the board stays independant. So this rule should still get respected when appointing new members, IMHO. Else, we can have people assuming Novell just takes over the board if there are Novell people in non-Novell seats. And this split is also a way to guarantee that if all Novell (or non-Novell ;-)) people get evil, then the board is still relatively in good shape.
New rule: Nominations: The election officials will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election officials will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they stand for election.
I'm not quite sure I like that, mostly because I wonder if we really need a rule for that: people (including the board and the elections officials) already can, and should, encourage community members to run for the elections if they think those members should run. What would a rule bring here?
New rule: 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.
What about first pushing back the elections two weeks, and telling the members that if there are not enough candidates, the board will appoint the seats? I guess it doesn't have to be mentioned in the rules, but I'd like this to happen so that we give a second chance to people to run.
New rule: 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.
Hrm. I see where this is coming from, but I feel it's unfair: if there are three candidates for two seats but I'm not happy with any of the three candidates, then there's nothing I can do: two of them will still get elected. Now, with the rule you propose, if there are only two candidates for two seats, I can block the two candidates from being elected.
IMHO, in that case, we should again push back the elections two weeks to get more candidates, and if there are no more candidates, then the running candidates just get elected. The key here is that if someone feels strong against one candidate, then this person can run instead of voting "no".
New rule: Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new board member.
Obvious +1.
New rule: 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.
Sounds good. I suggest to add some timeline in the rule, to help decide when such a process is needed. Eg: what is "repeated absence"? The current board probably knows best what would be appropriate, but I'd make such a process start after 2-4 weeks of absence, and it shouldn't last more than 4 weeks -- ie, the board member in question will have one month to clarify the situatoin with the chairperson.
New rule: Change of employment: The board member will continue to stay in the board until the end of the term and the next election the distribution of seats gets fixed again.
Hrm, I'll have the same argument as for the first proposed rule: the split is there for a reason, and we should respect it, IMHO. So -1 here.
New rule: 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.
Based on my experience in the GNOME Foundation, it's extremly beneficial for the board to meet in-person quickly after the elections. And we actually changed the terms of the GNOME Foundation board to make the term start just before GUADEC (on July 1st, since GUADEC is in July).
We could do the same for the openSUSE board, with the openSUSE Conference. So I'd make the new term start the month of the openSUSE Conference. That'd be October 1st.
(but +1 for the delay stuff)
New rule: Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
Why "including the chairperson"? And why 2/3? Is there any rule about how voting works inside the board? (ie, is 2/3 used in some cases already?) But else, +1 :-)
I think it also makes sense for the membership to be able to propose a change. In the GNOME Foundation, a vote can be organized at the request of the membership if 1/10 (I think) of the membership agrees to hold a vote. We could have the same thing for openSUSE, and that could be used to change election rules.
Btw. I read the Fedora guidelines on Board elections and also read also what Jono Bacon wrote in “The Art of community management” on governance. Published also via: http://lizards.opensuse.org/2010/08/25/revising-the-board-election-rules/
You can also read the GNOME Foundation by-laws, which can be of interest when you think about this kind of rules: http://foundation.gnome.org/about/bylaws.pdf (it's certainly not perfect, but that's at least a good basis)
Cheers,
Vincent
On Friday 27 August 2010 17:49:28 pistazienfresser (see profile) wrote:
Just some thoughts on that issue.
Am 25/08/10 15:54, schrieb Andreas Jaeger:
Last years election of seats for the openSUSE board showed that our election rules are not complete. So, before the elections this year start, I propose that we refine the rules and like to start with this post a discussion on how to change them.
I see the following situations not handled: * Less candidates than seats for a category (Novell/non-Novell) * Equal number of candidates and open seats for a category (Novell/non-
Novell)
* a board member resigning * a board member disappearing and not engaging in the board * a board member getting hired by Novell or leaves NovellWe also need to clarify when the new board constitutes.
We should have a light weight process that is not overly complex and results in endless votes. We vote for people that volunteer their time for the openSUSE project and don’t get any material benefits for it. So, let’s keep that in mind when discussing alternatives.
Also, currently the board has five elected seats (three non-Novell and two Novell) that get elected, so it could be that we have enough non-Novell candidates but not enough Novell ones etc. To make this text easier, I will not mention this everytime.
I have a first proposal before discussing the situations: The board should be allowed to appoint people to board seats until the next board constitutes.
The alternative would be to have a special election when a seat becomes empty. I fear that this just overly complicates the process.
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get appointed by the board. Appointed seats are only appointed until the next election. The board can appoint also non-Novell folks on Novell seats and vice-versa.
I suggest also to not only have self-nominations but that people can nominate others – and the election officials will then ask the nominated person whether they stand up for election.
Other possible variants (alternative or cummulative). I especially think it not appropriate that someone should have all the work of getting into how the board is running (technical, social non written rules, the written rules) if she or he is going to stay just for a few months.
As I said elsewhere: That person can stand up in the next election again. We could also change and say the person stay for the election after the next (so between one and two years).
# A earlier date for the regualar half-board elections ealier but not quite immediately (e. g.: Up to tree/six moths earlier especially if the former member leaves in 7 mouths before the next regular election) # A election for the new seat ealier but not quite immediately (e. g.: Within half a year of the leaving of the former member.) # Running the board in the time within just with the rest of the members. The vote of the missing member could be ## just leaved out ## be taken by the members form the same group (Novell/not Novell)
New rule: Nominations: The election officials will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election officials will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they stand for election.
If this is handed in a way that combines openness and not embarrassing a potential candidate or the board, this may lead to good candidates and avoiding frustrating nomination processes.
Yes, it should be. But it means that this cannot be done via the elections list since that one is archived publically.
Insufficient Nominations:
This is a sorry state since it means that not enough openSUSE members are willing to volunteer for the board. In that case, the board should appoint people to join the board and it can put Novell employees on non-Novell seats and vice-versa. With the next election, the seat distribution would be fixed again.
New rule: 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.
Go on with a smaller board is not an alternative?
The question remains what to do with the candidates that volunteer, let’s handle them in the next case: Equal number of candidates and seats
One option here is to just declare the candidates as new board members. This would be the simplest process.
In other situations, you have a vote of confidence where people give a yes/no vote for the candidates.
One suggestion is a yes/no/abstain vote for the candidates and a candidate needs more yes than no votes to be elected. If somebody does not get elected, the seat gets appointed (see insufficient nominations). Since it could happen that one category has enough nominations but not the other, the voting would be different for both categories and this makes the whole process complicated. So, I suggest to change the rule to have just more than 50 per cent yes votes.
Yes. I do not think that a member that has gotten less than 50 per cent yes votes in a situation like that will have a real standing if she or he has to make a important decision.
New rule: 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.
A second election for this seat or just leaving it not be used for the comming period may be better variants.
I wanted to keep it simple ;)
Board member resigning
The board should appoint somebody.
New rule: Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new board member. Removal of board member
This is something that’s not covered yet as well. What happens if a member disappears virtually? Or what if a board member goes wild?
Even for the president (see: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4sidentenanklage) and the chancellor of Germany or a member of the Constitutional Cort of Germay http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bverfgg/__105.html are ways to get them moved out.
Rules for cases like that that should be there.
But I think as long as the new rules are not approved by the members of openSUSE: Something like a reverse election or just leaving the 'funny' board member formally on the board and getting she or him formally be known of the decisions that have to be
- that may include the lesser risk.
New rule: 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.
Go on with a smaller board or a reelection (see above, depending on the time left) are not possible variants?
From what I've seen as I was on the board: Possible yes, but the board has a good size, so replacing a person is better.
Getting hired by Novell or leaves Novell
The elected seats are currently either Novell employee seats or non-Novell employee seats. Should a board member resign if he gets fired or hired by Novell? IMO the board should stay functional, the seat was elected. So, again let’s use a pragmatic approach:
New rule: Change of employment: The board member will continue to stay in the board until the end of the term and the next election the distribution of seats gets fixed again.
An alternative would be that this would be a member with a voice but not a vote. The vote could be manged in the time being by the rest of the members from the same group (Novell/non Novell).
There's hardly a Novell/non-Novell grouping in the board.
If all runs well, I would think of no real differences as the other members will still hear his voice.
But if it comes really to a difficult situation Novell (as the main sponsor in many ways) may still be holding their/her influence.
Novell has also the chair person with veto power - so not a real problem.
Constitution
There was some confusion when the new term starts, let’s rectify it.
New rule: 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. Amendment
How can we change the rules? Should the election officials be in charge of them or the board itself? As member of the election officials for the 2009 board election, I propose this change but I suggest that anybody can propose changes but that the board has the final say on them.
New rule: Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
A bit more democratic but maybe more effort taking alternative would be to set the changes into live temporarily but to make a constant decision with the voting of the new members by the openSUSE members in the same process.
So, once there’s consensus about my changes, I propose that the board approves them as stated in the Changes of elections. Conclusion
The current openSUSE Board election rules are available in the wiki.
If anyone has difficulties to find them in the "openSUSE:"-namespace, here is the link: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Board_election#Election_rules
Did I miss any case in the elections? What would you differently than I proposed?
Btw. I read the Fedora guidelines on Board elections and also read also what Jono Bacon wrote in “The Art of community management” on governance. Published also via: http://lizards.opensuse.org/2010/08/25/revising-the-board-election-rules/
Just my humble thinking/brainstorming about that matter.
Thanks, Andreas
On Monday 30 August 2010 00:02:33 Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi,
Le mercredi 25 août 2010, à 15:54 +0200, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get appointed, they get appointed by the board. Appointed seats are only appointed until the next election. The board can appoint also non-Novell folks on Novell seats and vice-versa.
Overall, it makes sense. That's what the GNOME Foundation does too, and it works well -- it happened a few times in the last few years.
However, I don't think we should have the last sentence: the reason we have the non-Novell/Novell split on the board is to make sure the board stays independant. So this rule should still get respected when appointing new members, IMHO. Else, we can have people assuming Novell just takes over the board if there are Novell people in non-Novell seats. And this split is also a way to guarantee that if all Novell (or non-Novell ;-)) people get evil, then the board is still relatively in good shape.
New rule: Nominations: The election officials will take self-nominations, nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The election officials will contact the nominated people and ask them whether they stand for election.
I'm not quite sure I like that, mostly because I wonder if we really need a rule for that: people (including the board and the elections officials) already can, and should, encourage community members to run for the elections if they think those members should run. What would a rule bring here?
We had some discussion in the election team whether we would be perceived as neutral if we would encourage members to stand up or not. So, this is some kind of clarification.
New rule: 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.
What about first pushing back the elections two weeks, and telling the members that if there are not enough candidates, the board will appoint the seats? I guess it doesn't have to be mentioned in the rules, but I'd like this to happen so that we give a second chance to people to run.
Yes, makes sense - that's what we did last time.
So, new rule: * 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.
New rule: 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.
Hrm. I see where this is coming from, but I feel it's unfair: if there are three candidates for two seats but I'm not happy with any of the three candidates, then there's nothing I can do: two of them will still get elected. Now, with the rule you propose, if there are only two candidates for two seats, I can block the two candidates from being elected.
IMHO, in that case, we should again push back the elections two weeks to get more candidates, and if there are no more candidates, then the running candidates just get elected. The key here is that if someone feels strong against one candidate, then this person can run instead of voting "no".
New rule: Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new board member.
Obvious +1.
New rule: 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.
Sounds good. I suggest to add some timeline in the rule, to help decide when such a process is needed. Eg: what is "repeated absence"? The current board probably knows best what would be appropriate, but I'd make such a process start after 2-4 weeks of absence, and it shouldn't last more than 4 weeks -- ie, the board member in question will have one month to clarify the situatoin with the chairperson.
Yes, JDD suggested something similar.
New rule: Change of employment: The board member will continue to stay in the board until the end of the term and the next election the distribution of seats gets fixed again.
Hrm, I'll have the same argument as for the first proposed rule: the split is there for a reason, and we should respect it, IMHO. So -1 here.
In this case I would really take the rule. Changing employeers should not have an effect.
New rule: 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.
Based on my experience in the GNOME Foundation, it's extremly beneficial for the board to meet in-person quickly after the elections. And we actually changed the terms of the GNOME Foundation board to make the term start just before GUADEC (on July 1st, since GUADEC is in July).
We could do the same for the openSUSE board, with the openSUSE Conference. So I'd make the new term start the month of the openSUSE Conference. That'd be October 1st.
So, meeting at FOSDEM.
October 1st means either enlarging or shrinking the current election period.
(but +1 for the delay stuff)
New rule: Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
Why "including the chairperson"? And why 2/3? Is there any rule about how voting works inside the board? (ie, is 2/3 used in some cases already?) But else, +1 :-)
No precedence for this. The chairperson has veto power - but I wanted to make it explicit here.
I think it also makes sense for the membership to be able to propose a change. In the GNOME Foundation, a vote can be organized at the request of the membership if 1/10 (I think) of the membership agrees to hold a vote. We could have the same thing for openSUSE, and that could be used to change election rules.
Interesting idea but I suggest to discuss this in a broader context.
Btw. I read the Fedora guidelines on Board elections and also read also what Jono Bacon wrote in “The Art of community management” on governance. Published also via: http://lizards.opensuse.org/2010/08/25/revising-the-board-election-rules/
You can also read the GNOME Foundation by-laws, which can be of interest when you think about this kind of rules: http://foundation.gnome.org/about/bylaws.pdf (it's certainly not perfect, but that's at least a good basis)
Thanks, I read through parts of the GNOME rules already but will check that one as well,
Andreas
On Sunday 29 August 2010 23:03:06 Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 11:29:08 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 23:08:52 jdd wrote:
I have a long experience of writing associations status, so I try to make things clear.
Thanks!
<snip>
Handling of special cases:
- Running board is allowed to appoint one new member and one only in
the following situations. 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. A Novell emmloyee have to be replaced by a Novell employee, and same applies to community member.
Interesting idea of limiting this. What do others think?
I don't see why. Surely if there are more ppl leaving, the board (and openSUSE) is in trouble. However, to keep things running I think the other board members should be trusted to make the right decision. After all, we voted for them. Besides the board isn't THAT powerful, they can't stop us from doing what we do anyway ;-)
- On the following election, the appointed member is replaced by an
elected one. A "tirage au sort" (lottery?) designs the elected people that are elected for 1 or 2 years
Ah, so basically you want to take care that each year half of the board gets elected. Yes, that is good.
That is a short period. You do want to keep some continuity to preserve experience. I'd vote for 2 years min, 3 would be fine with me too.
openSUSE Board is voted for two years, just every year for half of the seats votes happen.
Appointment situations are: resignation of a member, removal of a member.
Any member can resignate at will, but then he will not be allowed to be candidate for the next election.
A Board member may be subject to removal only in case of absence of participation of three consecutive meetings or complete lost of contact. The board have to publish all the work done to try to solve the problem. A three month delay will be spent between the first notification of the problem and the board vote. the Board member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of the Board.
Meetings are every two weeks - so 3 times absences is 6 weeks plus three months makes 4 1/2 months. Quite a long time.
I like the 3 times absence but would say "without notification" - and make the period shorter.
I don't care much about this - I would actually make it not too long too and let the board decide if they want to wait longer if something like this happens.
Andreas
Thanks a lot for many commends, I've incorporated most of them in the version appended below. I have two rules where JDD suggested alternatives and would like your feedback on which ones to choose. I prefer the first version (and enhanced them from the initial proposal) to keep the board functional and have an easy process.
This time I'm appending only the rules together with the existing ones.
I'll reply to this email highlighting the changes from the previous version, Andreas
Complete rules
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. * 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. Add: The chairman, nominated by Novell is changed only and when Novell wants so.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
* Resignation: Any member can resignate at will, but then he will not be allowed to be a candidate for the next election.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new board member.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
On Thursday 02 September 2010 11:33:25 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Thanks a lot for many commends, I've incorporated most of them in the version appended below. I have two rules where JDD suggested alternatives and would like your feedback on which ones to choose. I prefer the first version (and enhanced them from the initial proposal) to keep the board functional and have an easy process.
This time I'm appending only the rules together with the existing ones.
I'll reply to this email highlighting the changes from the previous version, Andreas
Here're my comments on the changes:
Complete rules
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. * 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. Add: The chairman, nominated by Novell is changed only and when Novell wants so.
This one is new.
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.
This one is new.
* 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.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.
I changed the above to keep the affiliation quorum.
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.
This is the alternative by JDD. I would not limit it this way since all board members are elected and the appointment is for a short period only.
- Resignation: Any member can resignate at will, but then he will not be allowed to be a candidate for the next election.
This is a newly added rule.
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.
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.
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.
This is a newly added rule.
Resigning: If a board member resigns, the board should appoint a new board member.
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.
The above has been refined a bit.
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.
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.
Amendment: Changes by the election rules can be done by vote of the board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
Thanks to JDD and Vincent for their suggested changes and to everybody else for comments,
Andreas
Le 02/09/2010 11:37, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
This is the alternative by JDD. I would not limit it this way since all board members are elected and the appointment is for a short period only.
I only try to give a solution to the following situation:
the board is split between two options. The chairman vote makes the difference (normal)
But then 3 members decide to quit.
what to do?
I think that appointing three new members would give unanimity to a discussed decision, and this can happen very soon after one election, that is stay for near one year.
And I don't think dismiss to be again candidate is a good thing, so I propose to say that member quitting can't apply for the board at the next election.
the other parts are ok for me.
thanks jdd
On Thursday 02 September 2010 12:49:47 jdd wrote:
Le 02/09/2010 11:37, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
This is the alternative by JDD. I would not limit it this way since all board members are elected and the appointment is for a short period only.
I only try to give a solution to the following situation:
the board is split between two options. The chairman vote makes the difference (normal)
But then 3 members decide to quit.
what to do?
I think that appointing three new members would give unanimity to a discussed decision, and this can happen very soon after one election, that is stay for near one year.
This is an extreme case - the solution you offered with the limiting, is not one that I like (at least with the limit to 1).
What other alternatives are there to handle this? * if 20 % of the openSUSE members require a new board election, an election will be held for the complete elected seats * ...?
And I don't think dismiss to be again candidate is a good thing, so I propose to say that member quitting can't apply for the board at the next election.
Yes, that rule is part of my proposal, I liked it ;)
Andreas
On Thursday 02 September 2010 13:23:34 Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Thursday 02 September 2010 12:49:47 jdd wrote:
Le 02/09/2010 11:37, Andreas Jaeger a écrit :
This is the alternative by JDD. I would not limit it this way since all board members are elected and the appointment is for a short period only.
I only try to give a solution to the following situation:
the board is split between two options. The chairman vote makes the difference (normal)
But then 3 members decide to quit.
what to do?
I think that appointing three new members would give unanimity to a discussed decision, and this can happen very soon after one election, that is stay for near one year.
This is an extreme case - the solution you offered with the limiting, is not one that I like (at least with the limit to 1).
What other alternatives are there to handle this?
- if 20 % of the openSUSE members require a new board election, an election
will be held for the complete elected seats
- ...?
I actually think that makes a lot of sense - to have a re-election if enough ppl want it. Would surely solve this. Besides, if something is SO controversial, I think the board should do the right thing and let the members decide (vote if needed).
And I don't think dismiss to be again candidate is a good thing, so I propose to say that member quitting can't apply for the board at the next election.
Yes, that rule is part of my proposal, I liked it ;)
Otherwise I support this proposal.
Andreas
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...
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."
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.
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 ;-)
* 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.
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...).
- 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.
- 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.
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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
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.".
- 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!
Vincent
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?
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
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
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Jos Poortvliet jospoortvliet@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I don't know how your election committee handles things, but ...
In my experience, neutrality of whoever is counting/handling votes is very important.
ie. You don't want someone running to also be counting/handling votes. It avoids the "appearance of impropriety" (as my lawyer wife would say.)
Other than that, I don't think it matters if someone running for a board slot is also one of the 3 running the election.
Greg
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
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.
I assume the _new_ board gets to nominate? Perhaps this could be made a tad more explicit?
Gerald
Le 10/09/2010 23:59, Gerald Pfeifer a écrit :
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
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.
I assume the _new_ board gets to nominate? Perhaps this could be made a tad more explicit?
in this exact situation (elections), may be we could make a special college for nominations with the old and the new board together? I feel very unconfortable with this situation, meaning there is a great conflict or a comunity on very bad shape!
jdd
On Friday 10 September 2010 23:59:12 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
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.
I assume the _new_ board gets to nominate? Perhaps this could be made a tad more explicit?
Yes, I've made this explicit now in my draft,
Thanks, Andreas
-
Administrator -
Andreas Jaeger -
Gerald Pfeifer -
Greg Freemyer -
jdd -
Jos Poortvliet -
Patrick Shanahan -
pistazienfresser (see profile) -
Rémy Marquis -
Vincent Untz