[gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 971 bytes --]

Ladies and Gentlemen

Here are your verified election results.

For the three open seats for the term 2021-2023, two seats will be
filled by robbat2 (Robin Johnson) and antarus (Alec Warner). There is a
tie for the 3rd seat between alicef (Alice Ferrazzi) and
_reopen_nominations.
Per lack of an established rule for this event and given section 5.7 of
the Foundation ByLaws[1] we defer to the Board of Trustees how to
proceed regarding the 3rd seat.

 [1] - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.7._Vacancies

Final ranked list:
robbat2
antarus
_reopen_nominations alicef

The master ballot file and full results are attached.
Your confirmation IDs, so that voters can confirm their votes are
included in the master ballot, was already sent.
Thank you all for participating in this election by nominating,
accepting to run and voting on this election.

For the elections team,

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 16059 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.1.3: master-trustees-202106.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2705 bytes --]

--------- confirmation 021c0ec6 ---------
antarus robbat2 alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 07d6a9e9 ---------
antarus
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation 0b32b7b5 ---------
alicef antarus robbat2
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 1baa48f0 ---------
robbat2 antarus
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation 1efbd015 ---------
robbat2
antarus
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 255b83cc ---------
robbat2
antarus
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation 266c46a5 ---------
robbat2
antarus
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 2721a231 ---------
robbat2
antarus
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 33761155 ---------
alicef
antarus
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 34efaf36 ---------
robbat2
alicef
antarus
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 38c00b79 ---------
robbat2 antarus
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation 5e728e9e ---------
robbat2
antarus
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation 63c125aa ---------
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
antarus
alicef
--------- confirmation 6cbed605 ---------
robbat2
antarus
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 74f900af ---------
robbat2
alicef
_reopen_nominations
antarus
--------- confirmation 75c0c1ce ---------
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
antarus
alicef
--------- confirmation 76d8b499 ---------
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 8b8905fe ---------
robbat2
antarus
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 8bbc8fee ---------
robbat2
antarus
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation 8d956c1a ---------
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
antarus
alicef
--------- confirmation 9105bec8 ---------
alicef antarus robbat2
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation 98497592 ---------
robbat2 antarus
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation aa3050db ---------
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
antarus
alicef
--------- confirmation b9d3177a ---------
antarus
robbat2
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation c49115a2 ---------
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
antarus
alicef
--------- confirmation cd0000ba ---------
robbat2
antarus
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation cecaf5b4 ---------
robbat2 antarus
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation d1878656 ---------
antarus
robbat2
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation da4c46f5 ---------
robbat2
antarus
alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation e4c914a9 ---------
robbat2 antarus alicef
_reopen_nominations
--------- confirmation f024a191 ---------
robbat2
antarus
_reopen_nominations
alicef
--------- confirmation f90a7793 ---------
robbat2
antarus
_reopen_nominations
alicef

[-- Attachment #1.1.4: trustees-202106-results.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1796 bytes --]

_reopen_nominations
alicef
antarus
robbat2

                     _reop  alice  antar  robba
_reopen_nominations    ***     16      7      0
             alicef     16    ***      3      1
            antarus     25     24    ***      4
            robbat2     32     27     20    ***

option _reopen_nominations is eliminated (antarus trans-defeats _reopen_nominations, and _reopen_nominations does not trans-defeat antarus)
option alicef is eliminated (antarus trans-defeats alicef, and alicef does not trans-defeat antarus)
option antarus is eliminated (robbat2 trans-defeats antarus, and antarus does not trans-defeat robbat2)
the Schwartz set is {robbat2}

result: option robbat2 wins

*** Running another pass to find the next winners... ***

                     _reop  alice  antar  robba
_reopen_nominations    ***     16      7      0
             alicef     16    ***      3      1
            antarus     25     24    ***      4
            robbat2     -1     -1     -1    +++

option _reopen_nominations is eliminated (antarus trans-defeats _reopen_nominations, and _reopen_nominations does not trans-defeat antarus)
option alicef is eliminated (antarus trans-defeats alicef, and alicef does not trans-defeat antarus)
the Schwartz set is {antarus}

result: option antarus wins

*** Running another pass to find the next winners... ***

                     _reop  alice  antar  robba
_reopen_nominations    ***     16      7      0
             alicef     16    ***      3      1
            antarus     -1     -1    +++     -1
            robbat2     -1     -1     -1    +++

the Schwartz set is {_reopen_nominations, alicef}

result: tie between options _reopen_nominations, alicef

*** Finished ranking candidates ***

Final ranked list:
robbat2
antarus
_reopen_nominations alicef

[-- Attachment #1.1.5: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 16057 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2489 bytes --]

Heya!

El 20/8/21 a las 21:51, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto escribió:
> Per lack of an established rule for this event and given section 5.7 of
> the Foundation ByLaws[1] we defer to the Board of Trustees how to
> proceed regarding the 3rd seat.
>
>   [1] -https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.7._Vacancies

This is actually a bit more complicated than it seems:

Per section 5.4 "Thereafter, the number of Trustees shall be fixed by the members at each annual meeting of members." so in fact the number of trustees to have should be a question to raise at the AGM.

Then we also have to take into account that Alice is not a new trustee, but was elected to fill this seat 2 years ago. Since both antarus and robbat2 are renewing their mandates too, shall the AGM decide to go with 5 (or more) trustees, per section 5.5 "Each Trustee shall hold office for the term for which he or she is elected and until his or her successor shall have been elected and qualified or until his or her earlier resignation, removal or death. " alicef would remain a trustee until a decision on how to fill the place is made.

To make things more complicated section 5.7 refers to vacancies which given section 5.5 would occur after "his or her earlier resignation, removal or death" and not just because a new election will be held.

Based on that here is some action items:
* The agenda of the AGM should be updated to reflect section 5.4 (elect number of trustees).
* If you really do want or not want alicef on the foundation you should attend the AGM and vote on that item to have 5 (or more) or 4 (or less) trustees. This is how the tie should be decided in this particular case given the bylaws.
- If 4 trustees (or less) are chosen then alicef gets effectively removed.
- If 5 trustees (or more) are chosen then alicef keeps the position (at least for now).
* If you really want to participate as a candidate in a (possible) new election the time to raise your voice is ASAP.

The specifics in the second case become a bit more complex. Unless alicef resigns or she is properly removed, it is a bit unclear if there will be a factual vacancy for her position and therefore if section 5.7 would apply. If it applies then the trustees decide who can replace her. If it doesn't this means that unless a replacement for her is elected (via another election) she will remain a trustee.

Anyways I wish you a good day while I go back to my Ph.D.

Klondike


[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 93507 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 19:51 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen
> 
> Here are your verified election results.
> 
> For the three open seats for the term 2021-2023, two seats will be
> filled by robbat2 (Robin Johnson) and antarus (Alec Warner). There is a
> tie for the 3rd seat between alicef (Alice Ferrazzi) and
> _reopen_nominations.
> Per lack of an established rule for this event and given section 5.7 of
> the Foundation ByLaws[1] we defer to the Board of Trustees how to
> proceed regarding the 3rd seat.
> 
>  [1] - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.7._Vacancies

When the changes to the election process have been accepted in 2019,
the election dates were adjusted to include an optional second round
before the AGM [2].  The dates for 2020 [3] and 2021 [4] elections did
not account for the second round.  This looks a clear oversight.

A possible tie between _reopen_nominations and a candidate is definitely
something I didn't think of while proposing these changes (and I don't
think it was considered either when designing the Council elections
either).

I can think of two possible interpretations:

1. If we consider a candidate as a 'yes' vote and _reopen_nominations as
a 'no' vote, then a tie between 'yes' and 'no' causes the motion not to
pass -- so _reopen_nominations effectively wins.

2. If we consider a tie as a reason to vote again -- then the result is
roughly equivalent to reopening nominations.

Of course all of this should have happened before the AGM but now that
the milk is spilled...

[2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/73cf853e77c545ee886cbba009d93f6b
[3] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/808b87cd4c0b0f3656886d1e76d37b22
[4] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/08a584519f407815d7c02b8d037e45e9

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 4:32 PM Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Based on that here is some action items:
> * The agenda of the AGM should be updated to reflect section 5.4 (elect number of trustees).

IMO it is unnecessary to explicitly affirm the same number annually,
but I suppose it can be done.  I think the intent of that bylaw was to
state that the time to change the number of slots is at the AGM, which
generally makes sense (though this provision could be amended at any
time).

> * If you really do want or not want alicef on the foundation you should attend the AGM and vote on that item to have 5 (or more) or 4 (or less) trustees. This is how the tie should be decided in this particular case given the bylaws.

The trustees should be attending the AGM anyway, and nobody else gets
to vote there.  I just wanted to clarify that because the wording of
your statement might be taken to imply that if people show up to the
AGM they get some sort of voting rights.  Those voting rights were
already exercised in the election which just concluded.  The Trustees
could put items up for a vote, but my reading of the bylaws suggests
that they couldn't do this unless 1/3rd of all members are present to
constitute a quorum.

If your intent is to put the number of trustees up for a vote every
year by all the members, it would make a lot more sense to do it in an
election process (in a similar manner to how we elect the trustees
themselves).  Otherwise anybody who couldn't attend the AGM online
wouldn't be able to participate, which is probably going to
systematically disadvantage people in certain timezones.

IMO giving everybody the option to change the number of trustees every
year seems unnecessary, but if we wanted to have some sort of
two-stage election process where we first vote for the number of slots
and then vote for those occupying them, I guess it is possible.
Really though it seems easier to just elect trustees who will support
the number of slots desired by the members.

I get that this is a somewhat sensitive topic due to the nature of
elections and the recent outcome, but this obviously wasn't really
something that was thought through, and this is actually the first
time anybody has even had the chance to vote for the reopen option.

IMO the simplest option is to just leave alicef in her position at
least in the interim, inquire via the lists if anybody else wants to
run, and then if there are other candidates hold another election.  If
nobody else has an interest the Trustees could just appoint alicef (or
anybody else) to the slot.

Honestly, this situation is making me question the point of even
having the reopen option.  If we were going to just operate with an
unoccupied chair that might be one thing, but it seems like the time
for others to step up to run is during the initial election.  Having
the voters say we don't like the options doesn't really help, and it
just creates a somewhat adversarial situation.  I'm not sure that
operating with less than a full set of board members is good idea -
maybe if we had a dozen of them it wouldn't be a big deal to have
empty seats, but with only 5 the org really opens itself up to serious
problems if it has one or more positions vacant, like 1-2 people being
able to take unilateral action, bus factor, and so on.


--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2081 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021, Rich Freeman wrote:

> The trustees should be attending the AGM anyway, and nobody else gets
> to vote there.  I just wanted to clarify that because the wording of
> your statement might be taken to imply that if people show up to the
> AGM they get some sort of voting rights.  Those voting rights were
> already exercised in the election which just concluded.  The Trustees
> could put items up for a vote, but my reading of the bylaws suggests
> that they couldn't do this unless 1/3rd of all members are present to
> constitute a quorum.

This is one of the problems. There never was an AGM that reached the
quorum of members. The main reason is that the quorum of 1/3 is too high
(as proven by the previous sentence). I had previously suggested to
lower it [1] but that went nowhere.

Also, taking the data from [2] and from LDAP, the Foundation has 36
members from Europe, 32 members from the Americas, 5 members from East
Asia and Australia and 4 members with unknown location (not in LDAP).
It is clear that there is no timezone that will fit everybody. Still, I
would argue that holding the meeting at 03:00 UTC (in 2019 and 2020) or
at 01:00 UTC (in 2021) which is night hours (from Sunday to Monday) in
Europe is an unreasonable time when it excludes about half of Foundation
members from several consecutive meetings.

So, not sure if there is still time (there never is a call for agenda
items for the AGM which is another problem), but I would like the AGM or
the Trustees to vote on the following item:

- Lower the member quorum for future annual general meetings to
  15 percent of the members entitled to vote. Rationale: 33.3 % is too
  high and lowering it to 10 % was previously rejected [3]. (15 % is
  also what the Gentoo e.V. has in its bylaws [4].)

Ulrich

[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/443c7d847564b0c4391b434db05d1f34
[2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Member_List
[3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/676322
[4] https://gentoo-ev.org/downloads/Satzung.pdf §8(5)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2577 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 05:19:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> this is actually the first time anybody has even had the chance to
> vote for the reopen option.
Why do you think this is the first time somebody had an option to use
the reopen option?

The last 3 Trustees elections had _reopen_nominations as an option.
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-201807/ballot-trustees-201807
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-201906/ballot-trustees-201906
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-202006/ballot-trustees-202006

Council has used it since the council2008b election.

> IMO the simplest option is to just leave alicef in her position at
> least in the interim, inquire via the lists if anybody else wants to
> run, and then if there are other candidates hold another election.  If
> nobody else has an interest the Trustees could just appoint alicef (or
> anybody else) to the slot.
This is similar to my suggestion: if nobody else is nominated, alicef
gets the seat anyway.

> Honestly, this situation is making me question the point of even
> having the reopen option.  If we were going to just operate with an
> unoccupied chair that might be one thing, but it seems like the time
> for others to step up to run is during the initial election.  Having
> the voters say we don't like the options doesn't really help, and it
> just creates a somewhat adversarial situation.  I'm not sure that
> operating with less than a full set of board members is good idea -
> maybe if we had a dozen of them it wouldn't be a big deal to have
> empty seats, but with only 5 the org really opens itself up to serious
> problems if it has one or more positions vacant, like 1-2 people being
> able to take unilateral action, bus factor, and so on.
The reopen option makes a lot of sense if there are many nominees, and
elected representatives potentially retire between elections: the next
representative down the list, as long as they are above the reopen option
are eligible to become elected representatives.

Maybe adjust the voting to say:
If there are strictly more candidates than open seats, then the reopen
option should be present?

At that point, we could end up w/ a 3+ way tie for the last seat
sometimes?

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1113 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 736 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021, Robin H Johnson wrote:

> The reopen option makes a lot of sense if there are many nominees, and
> elected representatives potentially retire between elections: the next
> representative down the list, as long as they are above the reopen
> option are eligible to become elected representatives.

> Maybe adjust the voting to say:
> If there are strictly more candidates than open seats, then the reopen
> option should be present?

I strongly disagree. In an election, voters must have a way to reject a
candidate.

This is especially true when candidates can nominate themselves.
Otherwise, you could have the situation that a candidate is elected to
the Board who has no support from anybody else.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 07:07 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 05:19:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > this is actually the first time anybody has even had the chance to
> > vote for the reopen option.
> Why do you think this is the first time somebody had an option to use
> the reopen option?
> 
> The last 3 Trustees elections had _reopen_nominations as an option.
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-201807/ballot-trustees-201807
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-201906/ballot-trustees-201906
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-202006/ballot-trustees-202006
> 
> Council has used it since the council2008b election.
> 
> > IMO the simplest option is to just leave alicef in her position at
> > least in the interim, inquire via the lists if anybody else wants to
> > run, and then if there are other candidates hold another election.  If
> > nobody else has an interest the Trustees could just appoint alicef (or
> > anybody else) to the slot.
> This is similar to my suggestion: if nobody else is nominated, alicef
> gets the seat anyway.
> 
> > Honestly, this situation is making me question the point of even
> > having the reopen option.  If we were going to just operate with an
> > unoccupied chair that might be one thing, but it seems like the time
> > for others to step up to run is during the initial election.  Having
> > the voters say we don't like the options doesn't really help, and it
> > just creates a somewhat adversarial situation.  I'm not sure that
> > operating with less than a full set of board members is good idea -
> > maybe if we had a dozen of them it wouldn't be a big deal to have
> > empty seats, but with only 5 the org really opens itself up to serious
> > problems if it has one or more positions vacant, like 1-2 people being
> > able to take unilateral action, bus factor, and so on.
> The reopen option makes a lot of sense if there are many nominees, and
> elected representatives potentially retire between elections: the next
> representative down the list, as long as they are above the reopen option
> are eligible to become elected representatives.
> 
> Maybe adjust the voting to say:
> If there are strictly more candidates than open seats, then the reopen
> option should be present?
> 

Having the option is beneficial even if it's unlikely that somebody else
will actually accept the nomination in the second phase.  It indicates
that the candidate has no support from the community.  Not saying that
the candidate will actually care about that...


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 2:38 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> This is one of the problems. There never was an AGM that reached the
> quorum of members. The main reason is that the quorum of 1/3 is too high
> (as proven by the previous sentence). I had previously suggested to
> lower it [1] but that went nowhere.

IMO if you can't get 1/3rd to show up, it probably isn't an urgent
enough matter to do with an in-person vote.

Direct in-person voting is problematic for a couple of reasons:

1. It tends to exclude people based on where they live, or just how
busy they tend to be.
2. It creates a situation where people who really don't want to be
there feel compelled to be there just so a dozen people don't show up
and do something dumb.
3. In a volunteer org, with a volunteer board/officers, I'm not sure
it is wise to just let people who don't want to be Trustees just dump
requirements on them, especially right at the start of a new term.
The org can't function if people who actually care about a policy
don't stick around to implement it, which they could have done just by
running in the election.

The way this is handled by most US corps for annual meetings is that
all questions for voting need to be submitted in advance, and then
they are communicated to all the members eligible to vote, and they
vote on those measures at the same time they vote on the new board.
It is also usually done in the form of a proxy vote (basically some
lawyer stands up and casts votes on behalf of everybody who voted
online as if they were present), so technically there is a quorum
present but the only measures voted on are the ones everybody already
got to have a say in.

If we are going to do in-person votes then at the very least the
matters to be voted on should be communicated in advance, with no
opportunity to change the wording on them at the meeting.

> It is clear that there is no timezone that will fit everybody. Still, I
> would argue that holding the meeting at 03:00 UTC (in 2019 and 2020) or
> at 01:00 UTC (in 2021) which is night hours (from Sunday to Monday) in
> Europe is an unreasonable time when it excludes about half of Foundation
> members from several consecutive meetings.

I completely sympathize and think the meeting ought to be convenient
for most, but this just goes to the point of why the quorum should be
high.  We don't actually WANT people to be able to vote in-person on
things except in a dire emergency, because otherwise it suppresses the
voting power of those who aren't there.

I think that better approaches would be:

1. Submit such items as bugs/etc, where they can get voting by
comments over a longer period of time.
2. Have a lower quorum to submit items that go out on a general ballot
to all the members for confirmation.

Even with this it does raise the concern that if the Trustees aren't
already in favor of the proposal, will it even get implemented?  Worst
case if the Trustees don't like a measure that was passed they could
all simply resign, and now we have a serious mess.  Direct democracy
often deals with the problem that people's reach often exceeds their
grasp.

While I do get that people don't always agree with the Trustees
(sometimes including myself), I'm not sure that just having random
resolutions getting dumped on the org where 80% of the org didn't even
vote on them is going to actually make things better.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 08:38 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2021, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> > The trustees should be attending the AGM anyway, and nobody else
> > gets
> > to vote there.  I just wanted to clarify that because the wording of
> > your statement might be taken to imply that if people show up to the
> > AGM they get some sort of voting rights.  Those voting rights were
> > already exercised in the election which just concluded.  The
> > Trustees
> > could put items up for a vote, but my reading of the bylaws suggests
> > that they couldn't do this unless 1/3rd of all members are present
> > to
> > constitute a quorum.
> 
> This is one of the problems. There never was an AGM that reached the
> quorum of members. The main reason is that the quorum of 1/3 is too
> high
> (as proven by the previous sentence). I had previously suggested to
> lower it [1] but that went nowhere.
> 
> Also, taking the data from [2] and from LDAP, the Foundation has 36
> members from Europe, 32 members from the Americas, 5 members from East
> Asia and Australia and 4 members with unknown location (not in LDAP).
> It is clear that there is no timezone that will fit everybody. Still,
> I
> would argue that holding the meeting at 03:00 UTC (in 2019 and 2020)
> or
> at 01:00 UTC (in 2021) which is night hours (from Sunday to Monday) in
> Europe is an unreasonable time when it excludes about half of
> Foundation
> members from several consecutive meetings.

I dare say this is somewhat a major problem with the Foundation.  You
can't expect new volunteers to take part in the proceedings if existing
members keep setting meetings in the middle of the night.

Not to mention how I felt when I actually attended the meeting
in the middle of the night, and one of the Trustees didn't -- because
apparently knowing the AGM date two months in advance is not a reason
not to plan other private activities during the time.

In the end, if not the person who didn't attend, it would be entirely
possible to find a time that would also work for us Europeans.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny