Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results

>
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 2:01 pm, Joshua Gargus wrote:
>> If the unpopular candidate lost to the "Nobody" candidate, then  
>> "Nobody" would be the next in line for the board.  The board  
>> would  then consist of 6 people, just as if "Nobody" had been one  
>> of the top  7 vote-getters in the initial election.
>
> Yes, but what if Nobody then resigns?
>
> ;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Latta
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:55 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: re: candidate/issue discussion (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007
> Election Results")
>
>
> Hi--
>
>      You know, a lot of discussion happens on the Squeak IRC channel on
> freenode.net. In addition to here, I encourage everyone to visit the
> channel and discuss!
>
>
> -C
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ken Causey
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:08 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results
>
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 22:54 +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> > This is all theoretical, but - say there are 8 candidates one of
> > which gets no vote at all - so everybody dislikes him. But if one of
> > the board members resigns, he would get in?
> >
> > - Bert -
>
> Josh points out a valid point regarding the Nobody point but I can't
> help but note that (tongue mostly in cheek) we could probably do with
> some sort of impeachment process (Gathering of signatures/agreement of
> 10% of voters in the original election followed by voting on articles of
> impeachment by voters chosen by same mechansim as general election
> perhaps.)
>
> Ken

>
>> Any board can make life difficult for a particular member, this is a
>> fact of life, but they should not then get to decide whether to  
>> accept
>> a replacement based on whether they like the next guy or not.
>
>      I prefer to use the next-ranked candidate because (s)he is
> next-ranked; it has nothing to do with any other figure of merit, only
> with the will of the voters. I do think that such a policy would  
> tend to
> get more newcomers into the board (since incumbents seem to get higher
> rankings), the fact that the next-ranked person in this election would
> be new is not what motivated my suggestion.
>
>> ...such decisions should be made either by a third party (like
>> elections or squeak-dev) or preferably by following a fixed policy
>> (such as "quits not replaced, majority quits means new elections").
>
>      Right; I'm proposing a fixed policy: replace with the next-ranked
> people willing to serve until you fill the board. I prefer this  
> over not
>  filling the vacancy (like last year) because it could help to get new
> people into the board.
>
>
>      thanks again,
>
> -C
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>
>
>
>

> stephane ducasse wrote:
>> I would really like to see if we can get more people voting in the  
>> future.
>> If you have ideas or suggestions I would be interested.
> First we need to engage our sibling communities. My call for  
> representatives went unanswered, and probably for good cause. To  
> gain access to them, we need to create and use some common  
> communication channels (blogs?). To gain their interest, the Board  
> should be doing things that matter to those communities, then they  
> will want to vote to affect how things go. Getting an SqP account  
> is not so great a barrier, if they are interested enough.
>
> The other thing I think would help (the quality of votes,  
> certainly, and maybe their number) is a livelier debate on the  
> issues between the candidates. While the voters have an interest in  
> asking questions, and the elections team wants to see a nice  
> discussion, the people that have the most to gain from it are the  
> candidates. This is an opportunity for a candidate to:
> - Convince voters your opinions make sense, therefore they should  
> vote for you.
> - Get to know your future board members, and their stance on the  
> subjects you'll be trying to work on.
> - Clarify to yourself your own goals for this term, and commit  
> publicly to some of them.

>
> Nevertheless, there was not much back and forth. Some people think  
> the Board is not a technical forum, while at least Bert thinks it  
> should be, or at least one should exist. Discussion? none. Funding  
> projects seems to be more more popular this year, to Stef's joy.  
> But at the end of the elections, he still doesn't know whether it  
> will happen. Why not?
>
> Daniel
>>
>> Stef
>>
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> stephane ducasse wrote:
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> ***Thanks*** for the people that voted for me. I take it as a  
>>>> responsibility.
>>>> I would have wished to see more new blood in the board and more  
>>>> electors.
>>>>
>>>> Now as I said in the reply I wrote on the wiki election board,  
>>>> what is the process if as the 'guy never happy with life or xxx  
>>>> (fill as you prefer)' I decide that the board did not change  
>>>> enough and I want to redraw and let some new blood getting it.
>>>>
>>>> Stef
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you again for voting.  Our percentage of votes was higher  
>>>>> then last
>>>>> year.  We had 182 votes from 392 ballots that were sent out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The winners are:  (in alphabetical order)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew P. Black
>>>>> Cees de Groot
>>>>> Stéphane Ducasse
>>>>> Bert Freudenberg
>>>>> Craig Latta
>>>>> Yoshiki Ohshima
>>>>> Tim Rowledge
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see more details about the election here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/ypm95q
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again and congratulations to the new Squeak Foundation  
>>>>> Board 2007.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Teitelbaum & The Squeak Elections Team
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

> In the case of a resigning board member, there are probably 3 options
> for how to proceed:
>
> 1. Select the next-highest vote getter from the previous election
> 2. Hold a special election to re-elect someone for that position
> 3. Don't refill the position, carry on with a smaller board
>
> For what it's worth, I'm a member of a different board, and our board
> has a fixed rule in place (as part of our by-laws) which is a
> combination of #1 and #3:  We select the next-highest vote getter, but
> if we're less than 3 months from the next election then we don't fill
> the position.  This rule has worked pretty well for us.  (This  
> board is
> a low-tech, non-Internet-based board which has been around for 50  
> years,
> but the principles remain the same.)
>
> More specifically, if the next-highest vote getter is not willing to
> serve, we proceed to the next-highest vote getter after that.  (This
> actually happened last year with our board, the next-highest person
> declined to serve, but the person after that was willing.)  As far as
> treating "Nobody" as a bottom limit, that's not a bad idea, although
> that ties your by-laws to the more specific CIVS voting process, but
> that may be OK.
>
> Personally, I think #2 (holding a special election) is probably too  
> much
> overhead for a volunteer board, and not worth the effort.
>
> Typically, it's the job of the board to amend its own by-laws, so I'd
> imagine the board would discuss and vote on this internally, rather  
> than
> having the elections team make a decision.
>
> - Doug
>
>
> ----- Original message -----
> From: "Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]>
> To: "'The general-purpose Squeak developers list'"
> <[hidden email]>
> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:23:59 -0500
> Subject: RE: Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results
>
> All,
>
> I agree with Ken, we should be concerned with seating someone on the
> board
> by some circumstance post election without having any form of redress.
>
> Another concern is that the election could be months past, so would
> someone
> that ran for a seat really be available when the call comes?  I  
> think I
> like
> Cees original idea of having elections if there is still enough  
> time for
> the
> new board member to make a difference (the amount of time TBD), and I
> like
> Daniels idea of having a new election if a majority of the board
> resigns.
>
> The issue raised last time is how much the community wants to be
> bothered
> with having elections.  So is having an election every time a board
> member
> resigns is too much for this community?
>
> Ron Teitelbaum
> Squeak Elections Team Member
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-
>> dev-
>> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ken Causey
>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:08 PM
>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> Subject: Re: Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results
>>
>> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 22:54 +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>> This is all theoretical, but - say there are 8 candidates one of
>>> which gets no vote at all - so everybody dislikes him. But if one of
>>> the board members resigns, he would get in?
>>>
>>> - Bert -
>>
>> Josh points out a valid point regarding the Nobody point but I can't
>> help but note that (tongue mostly in cheek) we could probably do with
>> some sort of impeachment process (Gathering of signatures/
>> agreement of
>> 10% of voters in the original election followed by voting on  
>> articles of
>> impeachment by voters chosen by same mechansim as general election
>> perhaps.)
>>
>> Ken
>
>
>
>

>
>> While these matters are being considered, it would be useful to agree
>> the minimum number of board members that need to be in place for  
>> it to
>> be considered quorate, and a described process to be followed if the
>> number falls below that limit...
>
>      So far we've required unanimity for such decisions, and it's  
> worked
> so far. We can revisit this.
>
>
>      thanks,
>
> -C
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> improvisational musical informaticist
> www.netjam.org
> Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
>
>
>
>