Election results

The voters have elected:

Cees de Groot
Marcus Denker
Stephane Ducasse
Bert Freudenberg
Craig Latta
Yoshiki Ohshima
Tim Rowledge

157 votes were cast out of 347 authorized voters.  Detailed election
results are at http://tinyurl.com/gp4yz

Thanks candidates and voters.

Regards,
Brent (on behalf of the Election Team)

Congratulations to all of you!

It was a tough decision, all the candidates are great people and have a
distinct and valuable point of view on Squeak.

According to the web page, the overall winner is Tim. Tim, I believe this
shows that most of us want your common sense and non-passionate analysis
high on the decisions that are taken. And your sense of humor too. I hope we
will benefit from your skills and experience.

I hope backing the board with the explicit support from the community will
assure that Squeak is headed wherever the community prefers.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Vukmer" <[hidden email]>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:40 AM
Subject: Election results


The voters have elected:

Cees de Groot
Marcus Denker
Stephane Ducasse
Bert Freudenberg
Craig Latta
Yoshiki Ohshima
Tim Rowledge

157 votes were cast out of 347 authorized voters.  Detailed election
results are at http://tinyurl.com/gp4yz

Thanks candidates and voters.

Regards,
Brent (on behalf of the Election Team)



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/267 - Release Date: 2/22/2006

Hi all!

(this is a personal reflection)

"Brent Vukmer" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Indeed. Ok, so we only got 347 voters and 45% voted. On one side it is
low (both numbers) and on the other side it is... well, it could be
worse. :)

The specific result?

Well, I am guessing that voters might have focused on technical
accomplishments (coding etc) in the Squeak community and perhaps
forgotten that the number one task for the board (at least as we have
considered it during this first year with establishing the Team model
and so on) is coordination, coordination, coordination.

And given that, I personally think that Ken has done a superb job - both
in various Teams with such duties (Janitors, Box admin etc) and during
the short time he was on the board before this election (he took over
keeping track of all Teams from me). Ken has also been a steady presence
on IRC guiding newbies (and Craig is regularly there too) and
synchronizing things with especially me and Cees.

So seeing Ken not among the first 7 is a bit "sad" given his dedication.
But then of course, the new board will set the "rules" for the game of
2006-2007 and who knows how it will be played - 7 members is not
something encarved in stone, and most of the Real Work is done in Teams
anyway which are open to all (given that the Team model is still used by
the new board of course).

Anyway, the way we will handle the "transfer" from the old board to the
new is that for a period of time both the old members and the new will
be on the board list together, and then the "drop outs" will be
unsubscribed (at least this is what I think we should do).

In practice this means Craig, Tim, Yoshiki and Bert joins the list now
and later me, Doug, Ken and Noury drops out of it.

During this short period I am foreseeing some discussion about how the
board has worked and how it *will* work for the next year.

Again, I repeat - this is a *personal* reflection email from me - not
from the old nor the new board. :)

regards, Göran

Thanks to all the candidates for running, and for being willing
to serve.  What a nice problem to have, an election where I
like *all* the candidates.

I hope that the candidates who did not win this time will also
consider running in the future. Being on the board looks like
a lot of work and time commitment, and it's good to know that
we have excellent people willing to do this.

Dave

Hi everybody


Several points:
        - Thanks

        - Now I can tell you that I was thinking to drop everything in block.
        Even if we had fun with marcus and the previous board, the fact that  
people that I value decided to
        participate helped me and gave me energy and faith in SqF. I want to  
publicly thank them for that.
       
        - Been in the board implies for me more responsibilities than power.
        My goals are the same: improving squeak so that everybody can create  
his own future
        and creating a creative space for human developers :)

        - Normally after election, politicians do not really listen anymore and
        I would like to do the inverse. I would really like to know what you  
expect
        or would like to see put in place. We have some ideas (bounty  
system, better process)
        and I will really listen what the new boarders want to do (I'm even  
eager to see that :)).
       
So if you have some points that you would like to see happening  
please mention it.

Stef

PS: note that the board should be for me an enabler so I hope to  
enable you to do stuff
for Squeak and you :)

PS: TX brent! Good job

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 13:50 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
...some very nice thing

Thank you Göran for your vote of encouragement.  But actually I'm pretty
happy to be able to turn to other things for a while.  Right now I'm a
little tired of the administrative stuff.  I will continue my work with
the box-admins and hopefully start doing some real work with the I/O
Stewards team.  Congratulations to the newly elected Board members (as
well as those who were re-elected) and I wish you all success.

Who knows, maybe I will run again in the next election.  It all depends
on how things look in a year's time.

Ken

Hi Ken (and all)!

Ken Causey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 13:50 +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> ...some very nice thing
>
> Thank you G=F6ran for your vote of encouragement.

Well, you deserve it.

>  But actually I'm pretty
> happy to be able to turn to other things for a while.  Right now I'm a
> little tired of the administrative stuff.

Hehe, same feeling here - so I definitely understand that! It will sure
be nice to "only" be a member of this community.

> I will continue my work with
> the box-admins and hopefully start doing some real work with the I/O
> Stewards team.

Sounds great. I will also try to focus on I/O and SM of course. And a
bit on the web team. And of course be more active in maintaining a few
packages like KomHttpServer etc. And, and, and... bah. :)

> Congratulations to the newly elected Board members (as
> well as those who were re-elected) and I wish you all success.

Yes, congrats to you all from me too - in case I missed to say that. :)
 
regards, Göran

On 2/24/06, Ken Causey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Thank you Göran for your vote of encouragement.  But actually I'm pretty
> happy to be able to turn to other things for a while.

To be frank, I wouldn't have minded at all not to be re-elected :-).
But still, I don't like this particular bit of the outcome at all -
one of the hardest-working guys on the board didn't get re-elected.
That means that either the community does not want hard-working people
on the board, or - more likely - that there's a disconnect here. It'll
be an important item on the agenda for the coming board to work on
that.

On 26-Feb-06, at 12:00 PM, Cees De Groot wrote:
The problem with any sort of democracy is that it essentially a  
popularity contest and hard work is rarely valued as it should be.  
Ken has done lots of important quiet behind the scenes stuff and I  
know from too much experience that that is never a way to look  
important.

Fortunately there is nothing whatsoever to prevent the board from  
listening to people not favoured by the voting mechanism, nor to stop  
good people from just getting on with helping.

The only privileges I can see for being on the board are the salary,  
the chauffeuse driven car and the apartment in Monaco.


tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Useful random insult:- One flower short of an arrangement.

> From: Cees De Groot
> But still, I don't like this particular bit of the outcome at all -
> one of the hardest-working guys on the board didn't get re-elected.

Yes.  That surprised me somewhat.  Ken's done many of the grubby jobs
that nobody else picked up, and he certainly gets my thanks for
soldiering on even when the team around him hasn't necessarily done as
much as he has.

> That means that either the community does not want hard-working people
> on the board, or - more likely - that there's a disconnect here.

My guess is that there's a disconnect here.  I think a number of people
see 'the board' as setting Squeak's future technical direction as well
as / instead of its co-ordination role, and that they have chosen to
elect people who are going in a technical direction that they prefer.

If we are aiming to keep a technical community from fragmenting, this
may not be a bad election outcome.  If we are aiming to move forwards in
a specific organisational direction, it may well be poor.  If we're
aiming to do both... well, I suspect the election just set some
priorities!

                - Peter

P.S. I'm glad the voters showed due diligence and placed me last!

On 26-Feb-06, at 12:37 PM, Peter Crowther wrote:
>
> P.S. I'm glad the voters showed due diligence and placed me last!
We can always appoint you as Viceroy for UK affairs.

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.

> From: tim Rowledge
> We can always appoint you as Viceroy for UK affairs.

I'm not called Roy, but the Vice bit sounds good :-).

More seriously... the governance of this community probably still needs
work; I'd be happy to return to being a member of the Elections team and
trying to get the election and governance side a bit more sorted.  Not
least, getting the Elections team itself on a sound footing, so that it
doesn't look like something that was created by fiat of the Board.
However, that's up to the new Board - they may want to do things a
different way - and also somewhat up to Brent as team leader.

I also still have a half-complete Smalltalk version of the SqP ranking
algorithm (sorry Cees, family commitments went from manageable to
full-time with little warning).  One day we'll get this stuff into a
sensible language!

                - Peter

"Brent Vukmer" <[hidden email]> wrote: Well done, Brent! Thank you very much for making that election happen.
It was a very important step for the Squeak community!

Regards,
Bernhard

All,

There were two things that I didn't like about the election.  

First, there should have been more written by the candidates about why they
wanted to be on the board, and what they wanted to accomplish.  (I believe
Daniel pointed that out already)

Second, there was not enough support for candidates from existing board
members.  I would have liked to see write ups from board members and others
supporting their favorite candidates.  There are a number of people that I
feel could have had a lot of influence on the election if they had actively
supported candidates.  It would have been helpful for people to come out and
say who they supported and why.

Maybe during the next election there could be a debate, questions submitted
to each candidate collated and presented as a platform comparison.  We might
also have individual pages where people could write comments so that we have
a better idea of the current level of support that each candidate has from
the community.  Gauging the community support is a very important aspect of
why each candidate should be elected.  

I spent a great deal of time trying to encourage people to run
(unsuccessfully).  I also spent some time writing up a post to support my
favorite candidates.  I finally decided against sending it out because I
didn't feel my standing in the community was strong enough for it to make a
difference.  Thinking back now I guess I should have sent it.

I think the board is made up of very good people.  I can say also that Ken
was instrumental in getting our cryptography group going and I would like to
personally thank you Ken for your support and would hope that you continue
to participate in this community no less then before.  

We might also consider Board Member Emeritus status, which might include
rights to the board list and encouragement to participate in discussions but
with no voting rights.  Just a thought.

Ron Teitelbaum
President / Principal Software Engineer
US Medical Record Specialists
[hidden email]
Squeak Cryptography Team Leader
Squeak News Team Member

On 2/27/06, Ron Teitelbaum <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There were two things that I didn't like about the election.
>
Thanks for the comments, Ron - most appreciated and I think you're
right about the 'campaign' thing.

All: please spout your dissatisfaction with the elections here. Or say
that you liked it just fine. It will provide very necessary feedback
for the Elections team.

> We might also consider Board Member Emeritus status, which might include
> rights to the board list and encouragement to participate in discussions but
> with no voting rights.  Just a thought.

Agreed. I'd like the retired members to form a sort of advisory
council, chiming in whenever asked or whenever they feel it's
necessary. How exactly this will take shape, we'll need to see (for
starters, the new emeritii need to accept the position ;-))

Hi all!

"Cees De Groot" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Ron Teitelbaum <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > There were two things that I didn't like about the election.
> >
> Thanks for the comments, Ron - most appreciated and I think you're
> right about the 'campaign' thing.

Yes. Since I was a current board member I didn't really feel that it was
appropriate for me to express my views on the candidates.
In retrospect - perhaps it would have been fine, I don't know. I felt it
was very important that the squeak-dev community felt that this election
really was proper and not in any way "tampered" with by the current
board and its members.
 
We could have a separate board-emeritus list and the board could then CC
to it whenever they feel they want to get feedback etc.

regards, Göran

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:59:29AM +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:
> All: please spout your dissatisfaction with the elections here. Or say
> that you liked it just fine. It will provide very necessary feedback
> for the Elections team.

I liked it just fine.

Voters were worried about which of the good candidates to
vote *for*, and nobody seemed worried about who to vote against.
So I would say that a few good people did not win this time, and
nobody lost.

The election was well run also. Thanks to the Elections team for
putting it all together.

Dave

"Cees De Groot" <[hidden email]> asked

> All: please spout your dissatisfaction with the elections here. Or say
> that you liked it just fine. It will provide very necessary feedback
> for the Elections team.

I was most happy with the election.

>From a personal perspective most of the people I voted for got in

The only criticism I have is that the process seemed a bit rushed. I know it
wasn't actually - we all knew about the deadlines and dates long ago - and I
think perhaps it felt rushed because of the last-minute request for some
candidate platforms.

There's a simple solution: when candidates accept nominations (and these
nominations should be accepted at least a month before the election date),
they post their platform, either here on the list or SqueakPeople.

frank

2006/2/27, Frank Shearar <[hidden email]>:

>
> There's a simple solution: when candidates accept nominations (and these
> nominations should be accepted at least a month before the election date),
> they post their platform, either here on the list or SqueakPeople.
>

Yes, I agree. To know the plans of candidates will help in the
decision of each voter.

gsa.

> >
> > > We might also consider Board Member Emeritus status, which might include
> > > rights to the board list and encouragement to participate in discussions but
> > > with no voting rights.  Just a thought.
> >
>
> We could have a separate board-emeritus list and the board could then CC
> to it whenever they feel they want to get feedback etc.
>

An "Emeritus Status"?.....Sorry, but look more as an attempt of
perpetuity than other thing.

The board ever can share any tought or ask opinions about decisions
with Squeak Community, not only with some Squeak members. I can
imagine severals ways of take decisions and lead the community, but
the worse IMHO is having a parallel "pseudo-board".

Just my opinion.
gsa.