* [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
@ 2009-01-08 13:01 Tiziano Müller
2009-01-10 13:03 ` Roy Bamford
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Tiziano Müller @ 2009-01-08 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-council
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1059 bytes --]
Hi everyone
Since Cardoe didn't present the paper up to now, I'd like to get the
discussion started how the voting procedure should look like in the
future.
So far we've introduced the _reopen_nominations person in the last vote
and it didn't change a lot. But there are more questions:
Does there always have to be 7 council members? If yes, what should
happen when we i) don't have enough nominations and/or ii)
_reopen_nominations is ranked somewhere between rank 1-7 ?
If not, should there be a minimum? If yes, same questions as above.
I know it's boring stuff but it's better to discuss it now instead of
during the next election period.
Cheers,
Tiziano
ps The results from the 2008b vote are still not on the council page,
who's going to do that?
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Tiziano Müller
Gentoo Linux Developer
Areas of responsibility:
Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin
E-Mail : dev-zero@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30
[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-08 13:01 [gentoo-council] Voting procedure Tiziano Müller
@ 2009-01-10 13:03 ` Roy Bamford
2009-01-13 21:45 ` Ned Ludd
2009-01-21 23:43 ` Donnie Berkholz
2009-01-13 17:40 ` Tobias Scherbaum
2009-01-21 23:45 ` [gentoo-council] " Donnie Berkholz
2 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Roy Bamford @ 2009-01-10 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-council
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.01.08 13:01, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> Since Cardoe didn't present the paper up to now, I'd like to get the
> discussion started how the voting procedure should look like in the
> future.
>
> So far we've introduced the _reopen_nominations person in the last
> vote
> and it didn't change a lot. But there are more questions:
>
> Does there always have to be 7 council members? If yes, what should
> happen when we i) don't have enough nominations and/or ii)
> _reopen_nominations is ranked somewhere between rank 1-7 ?
> If not, should there be a minimum? If yes, same questions as above.
>
> I know it's boring stuff but it's better to discuss it now instead of
> during the next election period.
>
> Cheers,
> Tiziano
>
> ps The results from the 2008b vote are still not on the council page,
> who's going to do that?
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Tiziano Müller
> Gentoo Linux Developer
> Areas of responsibility:
> Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin
> E-Mail : dev-zero@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30
>
Tiziano,
I would like to widen the discussion a little.
I propose that council members serve for two years, not the current
year and that half the seats are contested every year.
This helps ensure a smooth transition from one council to the next and
avoids the case where a council near the end of its term decides to
'leave it for the new council' and the new council takes a few months
to find its feet. We have seen both cases already.
Council can debate/vote on that any time, or even decide to hold a
referendum.
To answer your questions directly, I'm not happy with the 'fake person'
A democracy gets the leadership it deserves, if there are seven
vacanices and only seven candidates, they should be elected unopposed.
No vote required.
We could make voting compulsory but that would make a lot of work for
election offcials, chasing slackers. It would force developers to
register their apathy by submitting a valid ballot with all names
ranked equally. The 'none of the below' option can force a continuious
cycle of nominations/elections unless we drop the 'none of the below'
from any second attempt, then its clearly served no useful purpose.
The trustees are currently running with one vacancy and one appointee.
An odd number works best and the appointee serves only until the next
planned election. I'm really suggesting that council looks at what
the Foundation does. I'm not saying its perfect but there may be some
ideas there.
The Foundation trustees cannot have proxies as trustees are legally
responsible for the runing of a legal entity, as directors of a company
and slacker marks make no sense to the trustees either.
I find the idea of proxies undemocratic. They are in effect a councilor
appointed for a short period by a single councilor. Thats not very
democratic now is it?
What whould happen if a council meeting was composed of seven proxies,
is it still representative of the council?
My view is that the coucil is overly cautions about its democratic
practices, sometimes to its detriment and at other times (proxies) the
processes are not democratic at all.
Disclaimer: The views above are my own. They do not represent the
formal position of any project I may be a member of.
- --
Regards,
Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAklonMIACgkQTE4/y7nJvauMhACgkcSsB1pXzhDJLd15zUBB761h
7Q4An3Y0V4tkdhEq7lG3GyC66Kj5Qu5x
=7GlT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-08 13:01 [gentoo-council] Voting procedure Tiziano Müller
2009-01-10 13:03 ` Roy Bamford
@ 2009-01-13 17:40 ` Tobias Scherbaum
2009-01-13 18:05 ` [gentoo-council] " Torsten Veller
2009-01-21 23:45 ` [gentoo-council] " Donnie Berkholz
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Tobias Scherbaum @ 2009-01-13 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Tiziano Müller; +Cc: gentoo-council
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 414 bytes --]
Tiziano Müller wrote:
> I know it's boring stuff but it's better to discuss it now instead of
> during the next election period.
Then take a look at the previously started discussion (where mainly
Donnie and I took part) please, no need to discuss same things twice.
> ps The results from the 2008b vote are still not on the council page,
> who's going to do that?
Feel free to do so ;)
Tobias
[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-council] Re: Voting procedure
2009-01-13 17:40 ` Tobias Scherbaum
@ 2009-01-13 18:05 ` Torsten Veller
2009-01-22 17:07 ` Tobias Scherbaum
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Torsten Veller @ 2009-01-13 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-council
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 428 bytes --]
* Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org>:
> Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > I know it's boring stuff but it's better to discuss it now instead of
> > during the next election period.
>
> Then take a look at the previously started discussion (where mainly
> Donnie and I took part) please, no need to discuss same things twice.
Can you please provide a link to the discussion? What were the results?
--
Thanks
Torsten
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-10 13:03 ` Roy Bamford
@ 2009-01-13 21:45 ` Ned Ludd
2009-01-13 22:29 ` Roy Bamford
2009-01-21 23:43 ` Donnie Berkholz
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ned Ludd @ 2009-01-13 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Roy Bamford; +Cc: gentoo-council
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 13:03 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2009.01.08 13:01, Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > Hi everyone
> >
> > Since Cardoe didn't present the paper up to now, I'd like to get the
> > discussion started how the voting procedure should look like in the
> > future.
> >
> > So far we've introduced the _reopen_nominations person in the last
> > vote
> > and it didn't change a lot. But there are more questions:
> >
> > Does there always have to be 7 council members? If yes, what should
> > happen when we i) don't have enough nominations and/or ii)
> > _reopen_nominations is ranked somewhere between rank 1-7 ?
> > If not, should there be a minimum? If yes, same questions as above.
> >
> > I know it's boring stuff but it's better to discuss it now instead of
> > during the next election period.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tiziano
> >
> > ps The results from the 2008b vote are still not on the council page,
> > who's going to do that?
> >
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Tiziano Müller
> > Gentoo Linux Developer
> > Areas of responsibility:
> > Samba, PostgreSQL, CPP, Python, sysadmin
> > E-Mail : dev-zero@gentoo.org
> > GnuPG FP : F327 283A E769 2E36 18D5 4DE2 1B05 6A63 AE9C 1E30
> >
> Tiziano,
>
> I would like to widen the discussion a little.
> I propose that council members serve for two years, not the current
> year and that half the seats are contested every year.
You raised some good points here. But I don't think two years helps
anybody at all. Here are some of the reasons why.
In the last council we lost almost half of the people. Extending that
for 2 years.. What's it solve? 1/3rd of the orig ppl will be on the
council by the time the terms are over? People change as well as what
they want to do. Don't tie them up in the politics for so long that they
lose whatever good it was that made them a dev in the first place.
If they are good at being a councilmen then the chances of them being
reelected is good. 2 years terms means we can also be stuck with a
**ckhead for a long time. Big no thanks there. Plus it's nice to cycle
some new blood in.
I'm in favor of 1 year terms for council. Trustees on the other hand.. 2
years would be nice as the first few months seems to be spent sorting
out stuff from the previous set (paper work etc..)
--
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-13 21:45 ` Ned Ludd
@ 2009-01-13 22:29 ` Roy Bamford
2009-01-13 23:19 ` Paul Varner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Roy Bamford @ 2009-01-13 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-council
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2009.01.13 21:45, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 13:03 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote:
[snip]
> > >
> > Tiziano,
> >
> > I would like to widen the discussion a little.
> > I propose that council members serve for two years, not the current
> > year and that half the seats are contested every year.
>
> You raised some good points here. But I don't think two years helps
> anybody at all. Here are some of the reasons why.
>
[snip]
>
> I'm in favor of 1 year terms for council. Trustees on the other
> hand..
> 2
> years would be nice as the first few months seems to be spent sorting
> out stuff from the previous set (paper work etc..)
>
> --
> Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
> Gentoo Linux
>
Ned,
I'm not hung up on the term, I would like to see staggered terms to
ensure there is a continuity. A one year term means elections every six
months.
- --
Regards,
Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkltFdcACgkQTE4/y7nJvauJJACfelS9H05fbc5rqQXQ50cGXVPR
Ri4AoI4964BA2iK+ywJX5jKO0LSYjrC/
=e/JY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-13 22:29 ` Roy Bamford
@ 2009-01-13 23:19 ` Paul Varner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Paul Varner @ 2009-01-13 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-council
On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 22:29 +0000, Roy Bamford wrote:
> I'm not hung up on the term, I would like to see staggered terms to
> ensure there is a continuity. A one year term means elections every six
> months.
I too would like to see the Council members elected on a staggered
basis. I don't have a major preference to the length of the term. One
or two years seems good to me.
Regards,
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-10 13:03 ` Roy Bamford
2009-01-13 21:45 ` Ned Ludd
@ 2009-01-21 23:43 ` Donnie Berkholz
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Donnie Berkholz @ 2009-01-21 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Roy Bamford; +Cc: gentoo-council
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1671 bytes --]
On 13:03 Sat 10 Jan , Roy Bamford wrote:
> I would like to widen the discussion a little. I propose that council
> members serve for two years, not the current year and that half the
> seats are contested every year.
>
> This helps ensure a smooth transition from one council to the next and
> avoids the case where a council near the end of its term decides to
> 'leave it for the new council' and the new council takes a few months
> to find its feet. We have seen both cases already.
>
> Council can debate/vote on that any time, or even decide to hold a
> referendum.
I definitely think we need to hear from more people outside the council
on this before making any decision. I like the idea of longer terms, and
at the same time I see solar's point about people getting re-elected. If
we're staggered, we're constantly getting an influx of new people
regardless so the continuity is in the re-elected ones.
> To answer your questions directly, I'm not happy with the 'fake person'
> A democracy gets the leadership it deserves, if there are seven
> vacanices and only seven candidates, they should be elected unopposed.
> No vote required.
I'd rather have 5 people I want in charge than those same 5 people plus
2 more who are totally unsuitable for council. Gentoo deserves the
people our community want on the council, and nobody else.
> The 'none of the below' option can force a continuious cycle of
> nominations/elections
So? As long as the cycle continues, the current council remains in place.
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-08 13:01 [gentoo-council] Voting procedure Tiziano Müller
2009-01-10 13:03 ` Roy Bamford
2009-01-13 17:40 ` Tobias Scherbaum
@ 2009-01-21 23:45 ` Donnie Berkholz
2009-01-22 0:42 ` Ferris McCormick
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Donnie Berkholz @ 2009-01-21 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Tiziano Müller; +Cc: gentoo-council
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 535 bytes --]
On 14:01 Thu 08 Jan , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> So far we've introduced the _reopen_nominations person in the last vote
> and it didn't change a lot. But there are more questions:
>
> Does there always have to be 7 council members?
No. I think we should set 7 to be the maximum though -- big meetings get
unwieldy.
> If not, should there be a minimum?
No. Gentoo developers can decide how they want to be led.
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-21 23:45 ` [gentoo-council] " Donnie Berkholz
@ 2009-01-22 0:42 ` Ferris McCormick
2009-01-22 0:58 ` Donnie Berkholz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ferris McCormick @ 2009-01-22 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-council
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:45:27 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 14:01 Thu 08 Jan , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > So far we've introduced the _reopen_nominations person in the last vote
> > and it didn't change a lot. But there are more questions:
> >
> > Does there always have to be 7 council members?
>
> No. I think we should set 7 to be the maximum though -- big meetings get
> unwieldy.
>
> > If not, should there be a minimum?
>
> No. Gentoo developers can decide how they want to be led.
>
So, zero is OK and so no Council at all? Or one?
> --
> Thanks,
> Donnie
>
> Donnie Berkholz
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
Regards,
Ferris
--
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Voting procedure
2009-01-22 0:42 ` Ferris McCormick
@ 2009-01-22 0:58 ` Donnie Berkholz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Donnie Berkholz @ 2009-01-22 0:58 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Ferris McCormick; +Cc: gentoo-council
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 948 bytes --]
On 00:42 Thu 22 Jan , Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:45:27 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On 14:01 Thu 08 Jan , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > So far we've introduced the _reopen_nominations person in the last vote
> > > and it didn't change a lot. But there are more questions:
> > >
> > > Does there always have to be 7 council members?
> >
> > No. I think we should set 7 to be the maximum though -- big meetings get
> > unwieldy.
> >
> > > If not, should there be a minimum?
> >
> > No. Gentoo developers can decide how they want to be led.
> >
>
> So, zero is OK and so no Council at all? Or one?
I think zero means you wouldn't have a council, so you'd violate GLEP
39. One would be allowable, although I'd be awfully surprised if it ever
happened.
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-council] Re: Voting procedure
2009-01-13 18:05 ` [gentoo-council] " Torsten Veller
@ 2009-01-22 17:07 ` Tobias Scherbaum
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Tobias Scherbaum @ 2009-01-22 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Torsten Veller; +Cc: gentoo-council
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]
Am Dienstag, den 13.01.2009, 19:05 +0100 schrieb Torsten Veller:
> * Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org>:
> > Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > I know it's boring stuff but it's better to discuss it now instead of
> > > during the next election period.
> >
> > Then take a look at the previously started discussion (where mainly
> > Donnie and I took part) please, no need to discuss same things twice.
>
> Can you please provide a link to the discussion? What were the results?
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_f16cdd2328079cae68e647996c4df270.xml
A result of this discussion was to add the _reopen_nominations candidate
to the ballot, then the discussion got stuck starting with the election.
Tobias
[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-01-22 17:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-01-08 13:01 [gentoo-council] Voting procedure Tiziano Müller
2009-01-10 13:03 ` Roy Bamford
2009-01-13 21:45 ` Ned Ludd
2009-01-13 22:29 ` Roy Bamford
2009-01-13 23:19 ` Paul Varner
2009-01-21 23:43 ` Donnie Berkholz
2009-01-13 17:40 ` Tobias Scherbaum
2009-01-13 18:05 ` [gentoo-council] " Torsten Veller
2009-01-22 17:07 ` Tobias Scherbaum
2009-01-21 23:45 ` [gentoo-council] " Donnie Berkholz
2009-01-22 0:42 ` Ferris McCormick
2009-01-22 0:58 ` Donnie Berkholz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox