[gentoo-nfp] reopen nominations

[gentoo-nfp] reopen nominations

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 285 bytes --]

As discussed several times previously, I again request that Trustee
elections have a _reopen_nominations similar to council elections.

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 484 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] reopen nominations

[Raymond Jennings]

As a foundation member I support this on principle.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@gentoo.org> wrote:
> As discussed several times previously, I again request that Trustee
> elections have a _reopen_nominations similar to council elections.
>
> --
> Kristian Fiskerstrand
> OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
> fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3
>

[gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

On 10-04-2018 21:37, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> As discussed several times previously, I again request that Trustee
> elections have a _reopen_nominations similar to council elections.


The _reopen_nominations pseudo candidate was an "invention" for Council
elections - it didn't exist before.
IIRC, there was a debate about using _reopen_nominations for the
Trustees election and the general consensus at the time was that since
we haven't had too many candidates on the Foundation history and that as
a legal body we need to have the seats filled, the _reopen_nominations
candidate was "counter-productive".
I don't recall any more if there was or not an argument about "pseudo
candidates" not being admissible on a "legal ballot".

Regards,
Jorge


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
<jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> we haven't had too many candidates

What does that have to do with candidates not being suitable for the
position they're trying to be elected for?

To sum up, we're forced to vote for candidates we don't want to vote
for because there's no way we can not vote for them, and not voting is
also not an option since if we don't vote twice in a row we lose our
foundation membership. If it has to be a rigged election I'd rather
not be forced to approve of it.

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Raymond Jennings]

Quite frankly I'd like to ask why we don't have more candidates
standing for election in the first place.

Is Foundation Trustee really that unpopular a position to stand for?

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Denis Dupeyron <calchan@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> we haven't had too many candidates
>
> What does that have to do with candidates not being suitable for the
> position they're trying to be elected for?
>
> To sum up, we're forced to vote for candidates we don't want to vote
> for because there's no way we can not vote for them, and not voting is
> also not an option since if we don't vote twice in a row we lose our
> foundation membership. If it has to be a rigged election I'd rather
> not be forced to approve of it.
>

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1126 bytes --]

On 18-04-15 19:29:54, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > we haven't had too many candidates
> 
> What does that have to do with candidates not being suitable for the
> position they're trying to be elected for?
> 
> To sum up, we're forced to vote for candidates we don't want to vote
> for because there's no way we can not vote for them, and not voting is
> also not an option since if we don't vote twice in a row we lose our
> foundation membership. If it has to be a rigged election I'd rather
> not be forced to approve of it.
> 

The positions in question are for a business office.  AFAIK the
posisitions NEED to be filled.  The only way I see this working is if
those already in those positions stay until the election completes.

There is an out if you are not satisfied with the current Trustees.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.6._Resignation_and_Removal_of_Trustees

If you want to see change I welcome you to stand up at nomination time.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2524 bytes --]

On 2018.04.16 02:40, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 18-04-15 19:29:54, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> > <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > we haven't had too many candidates
> > 
> > What does that have to do with candidates not being suitable for the
> > position they're trying to be elected for?
> > 
> > To sum up, we're forced to vote for candidates we don't want to vote
> > for because there's no way we can not vote for them, and not voting
> is
> > also not an option since if we don't vote twice in a row we lose our
> > foundation membership. If it has to be a rigged election I'd rather
> > not be forced to approve of it.
> > 
> 
> The positions in question are for a business office.  AFAIK the
> posisitions NEED to be filled.  The only way I see this working is if
> those already in those positions stay until the election completes.
> 
> There is an out if you are not satisfied with the current Trustees.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.6._Resignation_and_Removal_of_Trustees
> 
> If you want to see change I welcome you to stand up at nomination
> time.
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
> 

See also   Section 5.7. Vacancies.

Suppose we have a  _reopen_nominations (even if its legal) that tops the poll.
Nobody is elected.

The retiring trustees resign with immediate effect, leaving two, possibly 
three trustees to appoint further trustees under Section 5.7 of the bylaws.

Are they going to approach the volunteers that were beaten by  
_reopen_nominations, who clearly don't have the support of the membership
or approach other members who did not want to volunteer in the first place?

The concept of _reopen_nominations is silly, even for council. If someone
wants to stand for election, they really don't need to wait for an election 
rerun.

If you want to take the above thought experiment a bit further, after the 
first year of trying to elect trustees and failing the remaining trustees 
retire by rotation. They can be excluded too and we have a 
completely empty board ... now what?

In theory, the officers continue to run the foundation ... in practice,
the trustees double as officers, so that might not happen.  

It boils down to if you don't like the way the candidates list is shaping up
add more candidates during the nomination period.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> The concept of _reopen_nominations is silly, even for council. If someone
> wants to stand for election, they really don't need to wait for an election
> rerun.
>

Council members who leave office for whatever reason cannot be freely
replaced by vote of the remaining Council.  Instead the replacement is
whoever is next in line by vote.  The concept of the
_reopen_nominations slot is to designate that people below that slot
cannot be used as replacements, and instead a new election has to be
held.

And of course during the original election if not enough candidates
beat _reopen_nominations then less than a full set of Council members
are elected, and then another election is held.  This would presumably
be repeated indefinitely until enough people win one way or another.

There is no way provided for a Council member to take office without
being elected in above _reopen_nominations.

> Are they going to approach the volunteers that were beaten by
> _reopen_nominations, who clearly don't have the support of the membership
> or approach other members who did not want to volunteer in the first place?

In the last two years a grand total of 2 people ran for Trustee
positions without ending up a Trustee.  In contrast, in the same
period a total of 12 people run for Council positions without serving
on the Council in that year.  This is despite the fact that the
Trustees only had to fill 6 slots while the Council had to fill 14 in
the same period of time.

Even if the result of _reopen_nominations is that the Trustees end up
filling some slots with non-elected candidates there are still some
benefits:
1.  The appointed candidates would only serve for one year per the
bylaws, allowing for somebody with more support to replace them.
2.  The issue receives more visibility, and it makes it clear which
Trustees have a mandate.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pon, 16.04.2018 o godzinie 10∶32 +0100, użytkownik Roy Bamford
napisał:
> On 2018.04.16 02:40, Matthew Thode wrote:
> > On 18-04-15 19:29:54, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> > > <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > we haven't had too many candidates
> > > 
> > > What does that have to do with candidates not being suitable for the
> > > position they're trying to be elected for?
> > > 
> > > To sum up, we're forced to vote for candidates we don't want to vote
> > > for because there's no way we can not vote for them, and not voting
> > 
> > is
> > > also not an option since if we don't vote twice in a row we lose our
> > > foundation membership. If it has to be a rigged election I'd rather
> > > not be forced to approve of it.
> > > 
> > 
> > The positions in question are for a business office.  AFAIK the
> > posisitions NEED to be filled.  The only way I see this working is if
> > those already in those positions stay until the election completes.
> > 
> > There is an out if you are not satisfied with the current Trustees.
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.6._Resignation_and_Removal_of_Trustees
> > 
> > If you want to see change I welcome you to stand up at nomination
> > time.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
> > 
> 
> See also   Section 5.7. Vacancies.
> 
> Suppose we have a  _reopen_nominations (even if its legal) that tops the poll.
> Nobody is elected.
> 
> The retiring trustees resign with immediate effect, leaving two, possibly 
> three trustees to appoint further trustees under Section 5.7 of the bylaws.
> 
> Are they going to approach the volunteers that were beaten by  
> _reopen_nominations, who clearly don't have the support of the membership
> or approach other members who did not want to volunteer in the first place?
> 
> The concept of _reopen_nominations is silly, even for council. If someone
> wants to stand for election, they really don't need to wait for an election 
> rerun.

> If you want to take the above thought experiment a bit further, after the 
> first year of trying to elect trustees and failing the remaining trustees 
> retire by rotation. They can be excluded too and we have a 
> completely empty board ... now what?
> 
> In theory, the officers continue to run the foundation ... in practice,
> the trustees double as officers, so that might not happen.  
> 
> It boils down to if you don't like the way the candidates list is shaping up
> add more candidates during the nomination period.

You are missing a crucial point here.  _reopen_nominations given a clear
sign that more nominees are needed, and gives additional time for them
to consider.

In other words, let's say that N candidates are nominated.  Before
voting starts, M of N candidates accept those nominations.  In fact,
some of the nominees may not reply at all or wait till last minute
to decide.  So you don't really have a clear image of the candidate list
until it is closed.  And then, there's nothing you can do except for
accepting that in the end, 'bad' Trustees happen.

With _reopen_nominations (even if allowed only once), you get a clear
sign that the nominee list is bad.  People get a chance to reconsider. 
Even if the 'bad' Trustees still get elected in the end, there is
a clear signal that there is a problem.

All that said, if getting a full board of Trustees is such a problem for
such a long time, maybe it'd be a better idea to just reduce the number
of Trustees.  But that's another topic.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1110 bytes --]

On 2018.04.16 13:39, Rich Freeman wrote:

[snip]
> Even if the result of _reopen_nominations is that the Trustees end up
> filling some slots with non-elected candidates there are still some
> benefits:
> 1.  The appointed candidates would only serve for one year per the
> bylaws, 

True.

> allowing for somebody with more support to replace them.

Perhaps. If these 'somebodies' were interested. They would already
be standing. 

> 2.  The issue receives more visibility, and it makes it clear which
> Trustees have a mandate.

That's if the 'rejected'  candidates are will accept an appointment
after being rejected.

As for visibility, its a perennial problem. Look at the years when 
no vote is held and nominees are elected unopposed.
That illustrates both the problem and lack of interest in the posts.

_reopen_nominations will not magically make more candidates
come forward and may have the undesired side effect of 
making things worse, not better.

> 
> -- 
> Rich
> 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 2018.04.16 13:39, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Even if the result of _reopen_nominations is that the Trustees end up
>> filling some slots with non-elected candidates there are still some
>> benefits:
>> 1.  The appointed candidates would only serve for one year per the
>> bylaws,
>
> True.
>
>> allowing for somebody with more support to replace them.
>
> Perhaps. If these 'somebodies' were interested. They would already
> be standing.

Not necessarily.  They might not be involved yet, or they might simply
have other obligations that are no longer an issue a year later.

>
>> 2.  The issue receives more visibility, and it makes it clear which
>> Trustees have a mandate.
>
> That's if the 'rejected'  candidates are will accept an appointment
> after being rejected.

The Trustees are not limited to only appointing candidates who stood
for election.  They could also reduce seats to obtain a new quorum if
that is even necessary.

> As for visibility, its a perennial problem. Look at the years when
> no vote is held and nominees are elected unopposed.
> That illustrates both the problem and lack of interest in the posts.
>

I certainly agree that this is an issue, and it still causes problems
even if all the posts are filled with warm bodies.

> _reopen_nominations will not magically make more candidates
> come forward and may have the undesired side effect of
> making things worse, not better.

The problems are there all the same.  All this would do is make them
more visible.

I get the issue here.  We have people volunteering for a job that very
few people want, and in some sense this lets the membership give them
a vote of no-confidence before they even start their jobs.  In that
sense it does leave a bad taste in my mouth.  It is easier to
criticize than to step up and do things.

However, giving a false sense of approval also has consequences.

IMO a more sustainable solution would be one that either makes the
Trustee post more appealing to volunteers we all trust to do the job,
or which eliminates the need for the post entirely.

My message all along has been that the frustrations with the
individuals manning the Trustee/Officer positions are more a result of
deficiencies in metastructure than on the individuals themselves.  So,
personally given the choice I'd rather see the effort go into fixing
the metastructure.

That said, we shouldn't be complacent in assuming that just because
people win elections that everybody is happy with the status quo.  I
think it was antarus who pointed out that even though there is more
competition for Council seats some of the same issues may apply there
as well, and I think that is fair.  I do think devs get more of a
choice with Council, but that doesn't make it easy to tie that to how
they feel about specific issues.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 735 bytes --]

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Roy Bamford wrote:

> As for visibility, its a perennial problem. Look at the years when 
> no vote is held and nominees are elected unopposed.

I would much prefer if we had an actual vote even in such cases, with
a _reopen_nominations marker. That way, the newly elected trustees
would at least have a mandate by the electorate. Without a vote, it
almost resembles a normal project where members can just join. IMHO
the threshold for trustees should be higher than that.

Also, I wonder if legal problems wouldn't rather arise from the
absence of _reopen_nominations? IIUC, countify will implicitly add any
missing candidates to the end of a ballot. So there is no way to vote
against a candidate.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Also, I wonder if legal problems wouldn't rather arise from the
> absence of _reopen_nominations? IIUC, countify will implicitly add any
> missing candidates to the end of a ballot. So there is no way to vote
> against a candidate.
>

I was actually wondering the same thing since every proxy statement
I've ever gotten allows withholding votes.

However, reading the NM state regs they seem pretty flexible about
voting for directors in general.  As far as I can tell we could amend
the bylaws to not even require Trustee elections.  Maybe if we were
publicly traded there would be more stringent regulations, but that
will obviously never be an issue for us.

Perhaps somebody has more specific knowledge but as far as I can tell
the elections process we have is legal.  I can also see no legal
barrier to adding _reopen_nominations, or to Trustees appointing
candidates who fell below this threshold (unless we put something to
the contrary in the bylaws).

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf
53-8-15
53-8-18
53-8-19


-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1830 bytes --]

On 18-04-16 13:10:00, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > Also, I wonder if legal problems wouldn't rather arise from the
> > absence of _reopen_nominations? IIUC, countify will implicitly add any
> > missing candidates to the end of a ballot. So there is no way to vote
> > against a candidate.
> >
> 
> I was actually wondering the same thing since every proxy statement
> I've ever gotten allows withholding votes.
> 
> However, reading the NM state regs they seem pretty flexible about
> voting for directors in general.  As far as I can tell we could amend
> the bylaws to not even require Trustee elections.  Maybe if we were
> publicly traded there would be more stringent regulations, but that
> will obviously never be an issue for us.
> 
> Perhaps somebody has more specific knowledge but as far as I can tell
> the elections process we have is legal.  I can also see no legal
> barrier to adding _reopen_nominations, or to Trustees appointing
> candidates who fell below this threshold (unless we put something to
> the contrary in the bylaws).
> 
> http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf
> 53-8-15
> 53-8-18
> 53-8-19
> 

Thanks for doing some discovery.  I'm aware that the regs are very
flexible for us (even allowing for no voting from the members, not that
I agree with it).  I'm still concerned about what happens if this goes
on for more than one cycle.  Even at one cycle we'd have a period of
time we are down trustees.  Our first responibility is to provide the
infra (servers, money and legal) for gentoo to operate as a distro.
This could harm that responsibility.  If a way could be found to do this
without that hard I'm all for it.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Even at one cycle we'd have a period of
> time we are down trustees.

It depends on how it were implemented.  If we allowed the Trustees to
continue to make appointments to fill vacancies this would not have to
be an issue.

As I mentioned earlier I do think it is a legitimate concern that it
could be demoralizing.  Personally I like _reopen_nominations but IMO
it isn't our biggest problem right now.  I'd just encourage Trustees
(and everyone) to try to be conscious that not everything we want
necessarily has a mandate behind it.

It probably also wouldn't hurt for all of us in the peanut gallery to
consider that the fact that something ends up on a meeting agenda
isn't the same as it receiving a majority of votes.  Registering
displeasure is fine, and IMO a good thing to help prevent blunders.
However, we should keep in mind that the people running these meetings
don't really have personal discretion to veto agenda topics.  Nor does
it make sense to have an agenda item to discuss whether something
should go on the agenda.

In my experience most people on Council/Trustees tend to vote more
conservatively than you might assume from their banter/discussion,
which IMO is a good thing.  I think it is good for leaders to freely
discuss ideas so that they can get some second opinions on them,
without having to overly self-censor.  If those opinions suggest they
are bad ideas, they aren't bound to support them.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If you want to see change I welcome you to stand up at nomination time.

I have in the past, at the request of a trustee. I was the only one
who wrote a manifesto and showed any interest, and I was the only one
who wasn't elected. That won't happen again.

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 585 bytes --]

On 18-04-16 16:07:00, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If you want to see change I welcome you to stand up at nomination time.
> 
> I have in the past, at the request of a trustee. I was the only one
> who wrote a manifesto and showed any interest, and I was the only one
> who wasn't elected. That won't happen again.
> 

I wrote a manifesto I think it's still up and available in my devspace.
Just because you lose does not mean you should stop trying.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Just because you lose does not mean you should stop trying.

That wasn't my point but I guess I wasn't clear enough. Our foundation
and council elections work sub-optimally, to put it mildly. It's no
secret they are beauty contests where the wrong persons get elected
for the wrong reasons. You and three others are exceptions to that
rule over more than a decade on both trustees and council. That's not
much.

As for trying again, the one and only reason I ran was that I had been
asked by somebody whom I trust a lot. The latter is what I'm pretty
sure won't happen again. Or rather, I hope it doesn't.

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]

On 16/04/18 23:23, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Just because you lose does not mean you should stop trying.
> That wasn't my point but I guess I wasn't clear enough. Our foundation
> and council elections work sub-optimally, to put it mildly. It's no
> secret they are beauty contests where the wrong persons get elected
> for the wrong reasons. You and three others are exceptions to that
> rule over more than a decade on both trustees and council. That's not
> much.
>
> As for trying again, the one and only reason I ran was that I had been
> asked by somebody whom I trust a lot. The latter is what I'm pretty
> sure won't happen again. Or rather, I hope it doesn't.
>
I suspect the only way this will change, is for a forced all-dev and/or
all-foundation-member vote, either of 'no confidence' in the council, or
some equivalent there-of. If there isn't a decent quorum, any ballot is
likely to be ineffective, as the usual 6% will do their usual and the
status-quo is once again ratified de-facto.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Raymond Jennings]

I for one am going to be interviewing each candidate before I cast my vote.

I have only one voice but I'm going to do my best to make it count.

How seriously though do people ask questions of the candidates before
voting?  How much is it a popularity contest and how much is it actual
research on who would be best for the job?

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:29 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
> On 16/04/18 23:23, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Thode
>> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Just because you lose does not mean you should stop trying.
>> That wasn't my point but I guess I wasn't clear enough. Our foundation
>> and council elections work sub-optimally, to put it mildly. It's no
>> secret they are beauty contests where the wrong persons get elected
>> for the wrong reasons. You and three others are exceptions to that
>> rule over more than a decade on both trustees and council. That's not
>> much.
>>
>> As for trying again, the one and only reason I ran was that I had been
>> asked by somebody whom I trust a lot. The latter is what I'm pretty
>> sure won't happen again. Or rather, I hope it doesn't.
>>
> I suspect the only way this will change, is for a forced all-dev and/or
> all-foundation-member vote, either of 'no confidence' in the council, or
> some equivalent there-of. If there isn't a decent quorum, any ballot is
> likely to be ineffective, as the usual 6% will do their usual and the
> status-quo is once again ratified de-facto.
>

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1901 bytes --]

On 17/04/18 00:23, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> I for one am going to be interviewing each candidate before I cast my vote.
>
> I have only one voice but I'm going to do my best to make it count.
>
> How seriously though do people ask questions of the candidates before
> voting?  How much is it a popularity contest and how much is it actual
> research on who would be best for the job?
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 3:29 PM, M. J. Everitt <m.j.everitt@iee.org> wrote:
>> On 16/04/18 23:23, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Matthew Thode
>>> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Just because you lose does not mean you should stop trying.
>>> That wasn't my point but I guess I wasn't clear enough. Our foundation
>>> and council elections work sub-optimally, to put it mildly. It's no
>>> secret they are beauty contests where the wrong persons get elected
>>> for the wrong reasons. You and three others are exceptions to that
>>> rule over more than a decade on both trustees and council. That's not
>>> much.
>>>
>>> As for trying again, the one and only reason I ran was that I had been
>>> asked by somebody whom I trust a lot. The latter is what I'm pretty
>>> sure won't happen again. Or rather, I hope it doesn't.
>>>
>> I suspect the only way this will change, is for a forced all-dev and/or
>> all-foundation-member vote, either of 'no confidence' in the council, or
>> some equivalent there-of. If there isn't a decent quorum, any ballot is
>> likely to be ineffective, as the usual 6% will do their usual and the
>> status-quo is once again ratified de-facto.
>>
As a point of common mailing-list netiquette, Raymond, please
re-configure your mail client to Bottom post messages (Reply below
quote) rather than top-posting .. even if its just for the Gentoo
mailing lists (this can be done, eg. in Thunderbird).

Thank you.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]