Squeak Oversight Board Election 2010!

Dear Squeakers,

Approximately one year has passed and it is hight time for us to kick
another Squeak Oversight Board Election into gear!

Every year we elect the SOB (Squeak Oversight Board) consisting of seven
members from our community. The current board is:

        http://www.squeak.org/Foundation/Board

The schedule and process of the Election is as follows:

*** Now through 3rd March: Nominations of SOB members and campaigning!

Candidates should nominate themselves and start their campaign on the
squeak-dev mailing list. Or if you nominate someone else, make sure that
person really wants to run. :) I will not put anyone on the candidate
list until that person makes it known on squeak-dev that he/she does run.

*** 3rd March: The candidate list is finalized.

*** 3rd March to 10th March: Continued campaigning period

During this period, the candidates should ideally present themselves on
squeak-dev, unless they have already done so, and the community can ask
questions.

*** 10th March 6PM (18.00 UTC): Online election starts

The voting period is one week long and ballots are sent out via email.
And how do you end up on the voter list? See below. :)

*** 17th March 6PM (18.00 UTC): Online election ends

Results will be announced immediately when the election ends.

--------------------------

If you were invited to vote last year you are already on the voter list,
no worries! If you are a new Squeaker and wish vote do ONE of the following:

     * Get a "known" Squeaker to vouch for you. If a known Squeaker
sends an email to [hidden email] giving me name and email for you -
then I will add you.

     * Send an email to [hidden email] yourself (and CC to squeak-dev
if you like) with information/arguments showing me that you are indeed
serious about voting and that you are indeed a Squeaker. And no, I don't
have any hints on what you should write! :) Unless you totally screw
that up, you will probably be added.

When the voting period starts all voters will receive an email with
instructions and a link to the voting website.

If there are any further questions, just reply *in this thread* and I
will closely track it - or send email to [hidden email] which points
to me.

Everything about the election, including schedule above and more, can be
tracked here:

     http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/6150

...so let's get cracking!

regards, Göran Krampe

El jue, 18-02-2010 a las 00:14 +0100, Göran Krampe escribió:
> Dear Squeakers,
>
> Approximately one year has passed and it is hight time for us to kick
> another Squeak Oversight Board Election into gear!

Honest question, in the sight of the known discussions about the current
board.

1. Will some kind of Terms of Reference will be created to
limit/establish/clear the responsibilities/powers/obligations of the new
board?

2. Will some kind of gentleman agreement will be proposed for this new
board (and of course subsequent ones) that avoids that the new board
throws the previous board work and objectives for their new ones (and by
implication, upsetting people that worked for the previous objectives).

3. What will avoid that each new board makes from squeak its own
playground that will end with the board term. In the long term this will
kill the community, as we have seen this year.

4. What about the concerns of people about the members with voting
power. What prevents that in some election:
        4.1 only or mostly voters are the ones happy with the current board,
perpetuating the same members of the current board in the new board
        4.2 everyone votes, even the ones that haven't interest (economical,
financial, educative, code donated or contributed) or a real, earned,
right to vote

5. What about the "constitution" of Squeak, so many of this problems can
be fully avoided.

That is what comes to mind right now.

--
Miguel Cobá
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

On 18.02.2010, at 00:51, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
>
> El jue, 18-02-2010 a las 00:14 +0100, Göran Krampe escribió:
>> Dear Squeakers,
>>
>> Approximately one year has passed and it is hight time for us to kick
>> another Squeak Oversight Board Election into gear!
>
> Honest question, in the sight of the known discussions about the current
> board.

Honest answer: you and a few others attribute way too much power to the board. We're just a bunch of guys who stepped up to serve the community. That's all.

> 1. Will some kind of Terms of Reference will be created to
> limit/establish/clear the responsibilities/powers/obligations of the new
> board?

That's up to the new board. The last board asked the community, the majority response was "thanks, you guys are doing fine".

> 2. Will some kind of gentleman agreement will be proposed for this new
> board (and of course subsequent ones) that avoids that the new board
> throws the previous board work and objectives for their new ones (and by
> implication, upsetting people that worked for the previous objectives).

I'd expect the new board to honor previous decisions, unless there are very good reasons not to.  In my personal opinion, no decision should ever be final, but it should only be re-discussed if there are new facts.

> 3. What will avoid that each new board makes from squeak its own
> playground that will end with the board term.

You. As in, the people voting for the board. In previous years there were always a few people re-elected, and a few new ones came in.

> In the long term this will kill the community, as we have seen this year.

Judging by the amount of contributions, the community appears to be very much alive this year.

What we have endured though is the hijacking of this list by a very small but very vocal minority. I surely hope the election will bring more peace to the list.

> 4. What about the concerns of people about the members with voting
> power. What prevents that in some election:
> 4.1 only or mostly voters are the ones happy with the current board,
> perpetuating the same members of the current board in the new board

Nothing prevents that. However, looking at previous election results there were always some votes against the current board members (myself included), which seems healthy.

> 4.2 everyone votes, even the ones that haven't interest (economical,
> financial, educative, code donated or contributed) or a real, earned,
> right to vote

I think that is prevented by the low gain to be had from rigging the election. See above.

However, I'd propose a kind of "membership" model where only actual contributors would be able to vote (where contributions are not just code but time and efforts spent to help Squeak).  In fact I did propose this for these elections but it was deemed to late to change the process now. I'd expect the next board to ask the community about this.

> 5. What about the "constitution" of Squeak, so many of this problems can
> be fully avoided.

It would be good to write the election rules down, and in fact we will have to because we need to put it in the contract with the SFC. Right now we are putting in a placeholder that describes how elections have been held, but the next board would amend these.

Oh, and consider my hat in the ring for re-election :)

- Bert -

On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 17:51 -0600, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote: We brought this issue to the community here soon after Keith suggested
it to us.  Frankly, other than Keith and 1-2 other people there seemed
to be no interest.

The reality is that this is a very complex issue and it is impossible
for the Oversight Board to do this alone.  It is necessary to work out
some way to include the entire community in this process.

The current Oversight Board decided that first of all that there was no
real desire within the community as a whole to artificially limit the
Oversight Board, and secondly even if we wanted to do it (and we are not
in fact totally opposed, we are just not clear at all on the details) it
was not possible for us to complete it in a realistic fashion with the
other tasks we had and the time left in the year.  

> 2. Will some kind of gentleman agreement will be proposed for this new
> board (and of course subsequent ones) that avoids that the new board
> throws the previous board work and objectives for their new ones (and by
> implication, upsetting people that worked for the previous objectives).

'avoids that the new board throws the previous board work and
objectives': there is in fact no truth to this since the current board
is made up of many members of the previous board and there has been no
objection from the members of the previous board to decisions made
regarding 3.11/trunk.

> 3. What will avoid that each new board makes from squeak its own
> playground that will end with the board term. In the long term this will
> kill the community, as we have seen this year.

You, by electing the same members again.  But frankly I don't get this
reasoning at all, and I don't think I'm alone.  Yes we created a new
process and by doing this as the Board this did in effect supplant the
existing process.  But there was absolutely no reason that Keith could
not continue to pursue his projects exactly in the fashion he was the
day before we announced Trunk.  We were and are in fact interested in
his work but it just didn't seem to be reaching the point where the
community as a whole was willing to participate in the process quickly
enough and we felt that for the time being it was better to inject a
more conservative process that would involve the community sooner than
later.  (I say 'we' many times here but of course any opinions are
mine.)

Also I very much disagree that the community has been killed.  It seems
far more vibrant to me in the  last 6 months than in the year or more
previous to that.  Of course, I've done no real measurement and this is
just my impression.

> 4. What about the concerns of people about the members with voting
> power. What prevents that in some election:
> 4.1 only or mostly voters are the ones happy with the current board,
> perpetuating the same members of the current board in the new board

The voters, by voting.  If you are worried about the majority stifling
the minority then I see your point on one hand, but on the other I
don't.  What really do you think the Oversight Board does?  Technically
in practice the only enforcement policy we have is through manipulation
of the server hosting our various Internet based services, this is in
fact never used.  All we can ultimately do is express our opinions and
make our work available.  Yes, by having this label 'Squeak Oversight
Board' our voices are louder, but you can still not listen.

> 4.2 everyone votes, even the ones that haven't interest (economical,
> financial, educative, code donated or contributed) or a real, earned,
> right to vote

People earned a right to vote by having earned the communities
acceptance that they have a right to an opinion.  We are in fact liberal
with this pretty much giving someone a vote as long as they ask, but
practically speaking the voting list has changed very very little in the
last couple of years after Squeak People pretty much listed the entire
active community.  This is just not a realistic fear.

> 5. What about the "constitution" of Squeak, so many of this problems can
> be fully avoided.

Please feel free to write one and submit it for consideration.

> That is what comes to mind right now.

Ken Causey

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 01:33:42AM +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>
> Oh, and consider my hat in the ring for re-election :)
>
> - Bert -

Yay! Thank you.

And thanks once again to G?ran Krampe for leading the election process.

Dave
 

Thank you Miguel,

We have had 6 board meetings since the day I said "I will not be  
making any further contribution to squeak until the board has terms of  
reference" They obviously care less. It's nice to see someone who does  
care.

Keith

+1
Ken G. Brown

At 5:51 PM -0600 2/17/10, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez apparently wrote: