Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results

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

And - most important - thanks a *lot* to all the candidates that made
these elections real elections!

On 3/8/07, Craig Latta <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>      Thanks, Ron and Daniel, and to the rest of the elections team for
> running the election!
>

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

stephane ducasse wrote:
> 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.

I would guess the process is to just continue on. That's one of the
advantages of having more than just one or two people on the board and
have annual elections - with seven, one or two (possibly three) can drop
out and the board can still successfully function for a year. And if you
do this a couple of years in the row, I'd expect people to notice a
pattern and eventually decide not to vote for you anymore ;-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

Indeed I could be taken for an idiot, unstable, or whatever. But on  
the other hand, my freedom is not to buy and I do not
want to give credit to something that does not match my expectations.  
So of course, I would lose my incredible credibility
but who cares, certainly not me.

Now a better answer would be that 1/2 or 2/3 of the board should be  
renewed every year. This way we make
sure that people with fresh energy can contribute. This is a point I  
will ask the new board to vote on.

I would prefer that if I drop the next person on the list get the  
position.

Stef

stephane ducasse wrote:
> I would prefer that if I drop the next person on the list get the position.

that makes sense


(the other) Stef

stephane ducasse wrote:
> Now a better answer would be that 1/2 or 2/3 of the board should be
> renewed every year. This way we make
> sure that people with fresh energy can contribute. This is a point I
> will ask the new board to vote on.

Well, I don't really see how the board could vote on this - if the board
is a representative of the community then it's the community who votes
on it. And if the community wants "more of the same" it can certainly
say so (and, not surprisingly, has in this election). It would be
difficult to make arbitrary decisions like requiring that there must be
a certain amount of turnaround each year - as long as people have fun
they should be allowed to run, and if they get elected, they get elected!

> I would prefer that if I drop the next person on the list get the position.

Now *that* is an issue where I have complete trust in the board to come
up with a reasonable solution. If the board thinks that the best
solution is to co-opt another member, go for it. If the board thinks its
best to continue with reduced numbers, go for it. Either way is
reasonable and it really depends on the concrete situation.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:23:59 +0100, Andreas Raab wrote:
Not at all. During the two decades that I served in organizations run by  
volunteers, this particular decision was always made by the board and the  
community had to accept it. After all, the board's ob is to serve and if  
it cannot serve, it has to innovate. If it helps one can think along this  
line: we've elected the members of the board, and now they are free to  
make (even tough) decisions, until next election day.

/Klaus

Let me add that in this election the choice was between a number of good and
qualified candidates.  All candidates received significant support and, win
or lose, all are valuable to the Squeak community and much appreciated both
for their work and for their willingness to stand.

Gary


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cees de Groot" <[hidden email]>
To: "Seaside - general discussion" <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>;
<[hidden email]>;
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Seaside] Re: Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results


And - most important - thanks a *lot* to all the candidates that made
these elections real elections!

On 3/8/07, Craig Latta <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>      Thanks, Ron and Daniel, and to the rest of the elections team for
> running the election!
>



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000722-1, 03/07/2007
Tested on: 3/8/07 5:58:40 AM
avast! is copyright (c) 2000-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

+ 1

Stef

On 8 mars 07, at 11:58, Gary Fisher wrote:

Hi Stef,

As a voter, if you leave a board because you've found out that you
cannot contribute to it, I respect it. If you waste my vote by leaving a
board before doing so, that's something else.

Questions like "what happens if one board member quits", and variations
like "can/should the whole board quit if completely deadlocked?" and
"who gets to decide these things?" make me think that during
incorporation of SqF, some thought should be given to the bylaws
defining the governance of the board.

On behalf of the elections team, I want to thank to all the candidates,
everyone that asked them questions and similarly helped make the vote an
informed one, and to everyone that voted. A particular mention goes to
Cees that helped us out technically with the voters list.

My personal thanks go to Ron, my partner in running these elections.

Daniel

stephane ducasse wrote:

El 3/8/07 9:52 AM, "Daniel Vainsencher" <[hidden email]>
escribió:

> Questions like "what happens if one board member quits", and variations
> like "can/should the whole board quit if completely deadlocked?" and
> "who gets to decide these things?" make me think that during
> incorporation of SqF, some thought should be given to the bylaws
> defining the governance of the board.

Daniel:

You and Ron do a very good job.
For next election, my personal wish list is.

1) Steff said what he wants new blood. People seldom vote for unknown
squeakers. No idea how this could change , but is some to think about.

2) What I send as fun about "Squeak championship" could be taked for have a
better way of all know what "value" have each of us for community.

I very dislike "qualified vote" based in who knows a member and certify as
some .

As I said, maybe last season you was champ, but in this season you could
play lousy and must stay on bench.

Or go off the top teams and play in less powerful ones ( I seeing much
Champions League).

I like this kind of thing what any sport have into Squeak community.

All what have SqueakPeople account and not vote should receive Yellow Card
!!


Cheers

Edgar



       

       
               
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas

On 3/8/07, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 1) Steff said what he wants new blood. People seldom vote for unknown
> squeakers. No idea how this could change , but is some to think about.
>
The obvious thing there is to limit the number of (consequitive) terms
anyone can serve...

On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 01:23 -0800, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Well, I don't really see how the board could vote on this - if the board
> is a representative of the community then it's the community who votes
> on it. And if the community wants "more of the same" it can certainly
> say so (and, not surprisingly, has in this election). It would be
> difficult to make arbitrary decisions like requiring that there must be
> a certain amount of turnaround each year - as long as people have fun
> they should be allowed to run, and if they get elected, they get elected!

I completely agree with Andreas here.  We are better off simply giving
the community the flexibility during the election process to pick its
preferred mix of old and new blood rather than to dictate for once and
evermore some exact percentage that must be elected each year.  The
community can decide that based on the performance of the board and on
the set of candidates.  What happens if there is a smaller number of new
candidates than the dictated percentage of new members?

I too would personally have preferred some new blood on the board.  Not
that I'm particularly dissatisfied with the recent performance of the
board, but I just like to get the opportunity to see new viewpoints.
However I'm comfortable with the process that was used and so I'm also
comfortable and happy with the result.  By having annual elections no
matter what happens we have the opportunity to make changes in short
order.

Also, I expect in time many of the longer serving members will get tired
of serving or drift to other interests and make room for new members.

Ken

On 3/8/07, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I would prefer that if I drop the next person on the list get the position.
>
> Now *that* is an issue where I have complete trust in the board to come
> up with a reasonable solution.

It depends, I think, on the timing. If Stephane were to resign now,
it'd be reasonable to ask the next in line to replace him. If he does
it one week before the next election, it'd be reasonable to continue
with reduced numbers.

For anything in between...it's probably up to the board to decide
based on the specific circumstances. As we did last year...

On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 15:53 +0100, Cees de Groot wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 1) Steff said what he wants new blood. People seldom vote for unknown
> > squeakers. No idea how this could change , but is some to think about.
> >
> The obvious thing there is to limit the number of (consequitive) terms
> anyone can serve...

I'm not entirely opposed to that solution.  We need to take care not to
'evacuate' the entire or majority of the board all at once though.

Ken

All,

I wonder if the tenure should be extended.  It would seem to me that 1 year
terms are too short, although that could be the pain of the election talking
:)  Is there a reason for the 1 year term?  Are we worried that people would
not volunteer for the position if the term was say 2 years?

By the way I do not agree with term limitations and I certainly would not
support term limitations of say 1 year (which is what would have been needed
to change this election).  

The real solution is for people to express their opinions openly in a
discussion.  I'll say it again, and probably again next year, people should
support their candidates publicly, we should do more to help voters know who
and what they are voting for.  (Although this year with wiki pages, and
questions, it was much better then last year)

Congratulations again to new board.  

Ron Teitelbaum

Cees de Groot wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 1) Steff said what he wants new blood. People seldom vote for unknown
>> squeakers. No idea how this could change , but is some to think about.
>>
> The obvious thing there is to limit the number of (consequitive) terms
> anyone can serve...
>
>
In my humble opinion,
this should be up to the voters.
If they want new faces, they can choose to vote for them.
I for one would like to see the most experienced squeakers
in the board, or with other words the squeakers I had the
chance to make experiences with (if only by observing their
squeak mailing list posts).
I don't think limiting the number of terms is a good idea
for the squeak board.
Just my thoughts,
and please excuse the clumsy English.
Thanks,
Wolfgang

"Cees de Groot" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 3/8/07, Edgar J. De Cleene <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > 1) Steff said what he wants new blood. People seldom vote for unknown
> > squeakers. No idea how this could change , but is some to think about.
> >
> The obvious thing there is to limit the number of (consequitive) terms
> anyone can serve...

Other people have said the same, but as long as Foo's happy to run for the
board, I'm happy to keep voting him (or her) in.

If in some future time it turns out that someone being in the board for the
10th year in a row's a bad thing, I think _then_ is the time to consider
capping the allowed number of terms.

frank

Hi Stef--

> ...what is the process if... I decide that the board did not change
> enough and I want to [withdraw] and let [in] some new blood?

     My own preference would be for the next-ranked person to take your
place, particularly since that person (Todd Blanchard) would be new to
the board.

     Please let us know your decision.


     thanks!

-C

--
Craig Latta
improvisational musical informaticist
www.netjam.org
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]