Re: Enc.: [opensuse-project] Revising the Board election rules
AJ Talking with Izabel about openSUSE next Board elections and she told me and shared a link about gnome elections rules used [1]. I got a quick look up there and what I saw makes me believe the last link [2] could help us with a different view and strategy used by gnome-foundation to the similar task. I know we are different communities with different goals but I really believe we always have some to exchange with others communities. GNOME Foundation 2010 Elections [1] http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/2010/ Elections 2010: Overview of the Board of Directors [2] http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/overview.html
Em 25/08/2010 às 04:27 PM, na mensagem <AANLkTi=Wwhqedt_Yc5yjG=8qenB0HgW8dWARpyK-00y4@mail.gmail.com>, Izabel Valverde <valverde.izabel@gmail.com> gravou: Oi meu amor,
Vê se agrega alguma coisa o exemplo da Gnome: http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/
Um grande beijo!
2010/8/25 Carlos Ribeiro <CRibeiro@komputer.com.br>:
FYI
Em 25/08/2010 às 10:54 AM, na mensagem <201008251554.38854.aj@novell.com>, Andreas Jaeger <aj@novell.com> gravou: 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
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,
and two 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
board election, I propose this change but I suggest that anybody can
the 2009 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, Program Manager openSUSE,
aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org}
Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG
Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C
C272
A126
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
Le 25/08/2010 23:55, Carlos Ribeiro a écrit :
GNOME Foundation 2010 Elections
rules are here: http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/2010/rules.html what we could keep: * allow for voting only members from moer than XX month (to revent mass inscription just for vote) * say where (what list) the election discussion may be * In the event of a tie for the final slot on the board, the Elections Committee will schedule run-off elections as soon as possible. * The Elections Committee will announce preliminary results as soon as possible after the elections close, along with instructions on how to access the votes archive and how to independently verify the vote count. * Any eligible voter may challenge the preliminary results by e-mailing elections@gnome.org prior to June 22, 2009. The decision of the Elections Committee as to any challenge shall be final. Once any challenges have been resolved, the Elections Committee shall announce the final results. * Any questions regarding these procedures should be directed to the Elections Committee by e-mail to elections@gnome.org. The committee shall have the power to make any necessary changes or clarifications to these rules at any point during the elections. jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 25 August 2010 23:55:33 Carlos Ribeiro wrote:
AJ
Talking with Izabel about openSUSE next Board elections and she told me and shared a link about gnome elections rules used [1]. I got a quick look up there and what I saw makes me believe the last link [2] could help us with a different view and strategy used by gnome-foundation to the similar task. I know we are different communities with different goals but I really believe we always have some to exchange with others communities.
GNOME Foundation 2010 Elections [1] http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/2010/
Elections 2010: Overview of the Board of Directors [2] http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/overview.html
I looked already a bit outside our own community but this is a welcome addtion.I think we missed -as I think JDD also mentioned - the following case: a tie for a final slot on the board I suggest to add New rule: Tie: In the event of a tie for the final slot on the board, the Election Officials will schedule run-off elections as soon as possible to resolve the tie. The second URL is something to inspire us for enhancing our wiki page, Thanks, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
participants (3)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Carlos Ribeiro -
jdd