Talking with Izabel about openSUSE next Board elections and she told me
and shared a link about gnome elections rules used . I got a quick
look up there and what I saw makes me believe the last link  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
GNOME Foundation 2010 Elections
Elections 2010: Overview of the Board of Directors
>> Em 25/08/2010 às 04:27 PM, na mensagem
Oi meu amor,
Vê se agrega alguma coisa o exemplo da Gnome:
Um grande beijo!
2010/8/25 Carlos Ribeiro <CRibeiro(a)komputer.com.br>br>:
>>>> Em 25/08/2010 às 10:54 AM, na mensagem
> Andreas Jaeger <aj(a)novell.com> gravou:
>> Last years election of seats for the openSUSE board showed that
>> rules are not complete. So, before the elections this year start,
>> that we refine the rules and like to start with this post a
> discussion on
>> to change them.
>> I see the following situations not handled:
>> * Less candidates than seats for a category
>> * Equal number of candidates and open
seats for a category
>> * 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
>> in endless votes. We vote for people that volunteer their time for
>> 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
>> candidates but not enough Novell ones etc. To make this text
> I will
>> not mention this everytime.
>> I have a first proposal before discussing the situations: The
>> allowed to appoint people to board seats until the next board
>> The alternative would be to have a special election when a seat
>> I fear that this just overly complicates the process.
>> New rule: Appointment: In case that board seats will get
> they get
>> appointed by the board. Appointed seats are only appointed until
>> election. The board can appoint also non-Novell folks on Novell
> seats and
>> I suggest also to not only have self-nominations but that people
>> others * and the election officials will then ask the nominated
>> they stand up for election.
>> New rule: Nominations: The election officials will take
>> nominations by others and can nominate people for election. The
>> officials will contact the nominated people and ask them whether
>> for election.
>> Insufficient Nominations:
>> This is a sorry state since it means that not enough openSUSE
>> willing to volunteer for the board. In that case, the board should
>> 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
> be fixed
>> New rule: Insufficient Nominations: If there are fewer nominees
>> Board seats than required to fill all seats, than the board will
>> remaining seats.
>> The question remains what to do with the candidates that
>> handle them in the next case:
>> Equal number of candidates and seats
>> One option here is to just declare the candidates as new board
>> would be the simplest process.
>> In other situations, you have a vote of confidence where people
>> vote for the candidates.
>> One suggestion is a yes/no/abstain vote for the candidates and a
>> needs more yes than no votes to be elected. If somebody does not
>> 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
>> than 50 per cent yes votes.
>> New rule: Equal number of candidates of seats: If there is an
>> candidates and seats, voting occurs as normal but each candidate
> needs to
>> 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
>> board member.
>> Removal of board member
>> This is something that*s not covered yet as well. What happens if
>> disappears virtually? Or what if a board member goes wild?
>> New rule: Removal: In the event of repeated absence without
>> serious misconduct or negligence, a Board member may be subject to
>> Before any other process occurs, the Board member in question will
>> personally contacted by the chairperson to try to resolve the
> situation. If
>> this contact does not successfully resolve the situation, the
>> question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of
>> 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
>> employee seats. Should a board member resign if he gets fired or
> hired by
>> Novell? IMO the board should stay functional, the seat was
>> again let*s use a pragmatic approach:
>> New rule: Change of employment: The board member will continue to
>> in the board until the end of the term and the next election the
>> of seats gets fixed again.
>> There was some confusion when the new term starts, let*s rectify
>> New rule: Constitution: A new board term should start on the first
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> board where 2/3s approve including the chairperson.
>> So, once there*s consensus about my changes, I propose that the
>> them as stated in the Changes of elections.
>> The current openSUSE Board election rules are available in the
>> Did I miss any case in the elections? What would you differently
>> Btw. I read the Fedora guidelines on Board elections and also read
> also what
>> Jono Bacon wrote in *The Art of community management* on
>> Published also via:
>> Andreas Jaeger, Program Manager openSUSE,
>> Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi
>> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG
>> Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>> GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help(a)opensuse.org