[gentoo-nfp] Proposal: fix election duration & scheduling

[gentoo-nfp] Proposal: fix election duration & scheduling

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1755 bytes --]

This is a personal nit that I'd like to see resolved from running &
scheduling the Trustee elections, but also appreciate input from
everybody at large. I feel this should be considered and voted on at the
AGM.

Problem: 
- Scheduling the Foundation election is constrained by the AGM and
  recordation date requirements in bylaws & state laws. 
- The entire time period of the election has tended to drag on too long
  generally.

To work backwards from the AGM, can we agree to set recommended periods
for the election timeline:

Election cycle preamble:
YYYY/June/xx: June meeting sets formal approval of dates 
YYYY/June/16: AGM date announcement ~60 days window 

YYYY/July/01: Proposed recordation date, must be at least 10 days after June meeting ** [bylaw requirement??]

primary election (30 days):
YYYY/July/01: nomination opens, 14 days
YYYY/July/15: nomination closes
YYYY/July/14: setup day, 1 day
YYYY/July/15: voting opens, 14 days
YYYY/July/29: voting closes
YYYY/July/30: voting results, 1 day

secondary election (16 days):
YYYY/July/30: nomination opens (automatically triggered by the primary result publication), 7 days
YYYY/August/05: nomination closes
YYYY/August/06: setup, 1 day
YYYY/August/07: voting opens, 7 days
YYYY/August/13: voting closes
YYYY/August/14: voting results, 1 day

AGM:
YYYY/August/15: AGM date

Concerns:
Could somebody with a more rules-lawyer oriented thought process confirm
how the 10-60 days in Bylaw 3.7 constrain the recordation date?

-- 
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] Proposal: fix election duration & scheduling

[Roy Bamford]

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

On 2019.06.29 06:55, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> This is a personal nit that I'd like to see resolved from running &
> scheduling the Trustee elections, but also appreciate input from
> everybody at large. I feel this should be considered and voted on at
> the
> AGM.
> 
> Problem: 
> - Scheduling the Foundation election is constrained by the AGM and
>   recordation date requirements in bylaws & state laws. 
> - The entire time period of the election has tended to drag on too
> long
>   generally.
> 
> To work backwards from the AGM, can we agree to set recommended
> periods
> for the election timeline:
> 
> Election cycle preamble:
> YYYY/June/xx: June meeting sets formal approval of dates 
> YYYY/June/16: AGM date announcement ~60 days window 
> 
> YYYY/July/01: Proposed recordation date, must be at least 10 days
> after June meeting ** [bylaw requirement??]
> 
> primary election (30 days):
> YYYY/July/01: nomination opens, 14 days
> YYYY/July/15: nomination closes
> YYYY/July/14: setup day, 1 day
> YYYY/July/15: voting opens, 14 days
> YYYY/July/29: voting closes
> YYYY/July/30: voting results, 1 day
> 
> secondary election (16 days):
> YYYY/July/30: nomination opens (automatically triggered by the primary
> result publication), 7 days
> YYYY/August/05: nomination closes
> YYYY/August/06: setup, 1 day
> YYYY/August/07: voting opens, 7 days
> YYYY/August/13: voting closes
> YYYY/August/14: voting results, 1 day
> 
> AGM:
> YYYY/August/15: AGM date

That all works for me. My preference is to see it written in time before
AGM as the AGM is not fixed.

> 
> Concerns:
> Could somebody with a more rules-lawyer oriented thought process
> confirm
> how the 10-60 days in Bylaw 3.7 constrain the recordation date?

The two are not strictly connected.
The 10-60 day window is for the AGM announce. Its straight out of 
the NM statutes. 

New trustees take their seats at the end of the AGM. The AGM is
their last chance at due diligence. 

The Record date is the date when the list of potential participants 
in the forthcoming election is closed. Its public purpose is a call for 
new members to join if they want to participate in the election.
 

> 
> -- 
> 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
> 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Proposal: fix election duration & scheduling

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1528 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:01:38PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > To work backwards from the AGM, can we agree to set recommended
> > periods
> > for the election timeline:
...
> That all works for me. My preference is to see it written in time before
> AGM as the AGM is not fixed.
I should said, this was working relative to the date of any hypothetical
AGM. Not a specific AGM happening August 15th.

> > Concerns:
> > Could somebody with a more rules-lawyer oriented thought process
> > confirm
> > how the 10-60 days in Bylaw 3.7 constrain the recordation date?
> 
> The two are not strictly connected.
> The 10-60 day window is for the AGM announce. Its straight out of 
> the NM statutes. 
That's in Bylaw 3.4.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_3.4._Notice

> The Record date is the date when the list of potential participants 
> in the forthcoming election is closed. Its public purpose is a call for 
> new members to join if they want to participate in the election.
Bylaw 3.7 covering recordation ALSO mentions 10-60 days.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_3.7._Fixing_Record_Date.
And my question is how THAT requirement needs to be conveyed.
E.g. Do the trustees have to give 10-60 days notice of the recordation
date?

-- 
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] Proposal: fix election duration & scheduling

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1363 bytes --]

On 2019.06.30 07:15, Robin H. Johnson wrote:

[snip]

> Bylaw 3.7 covering recordation ALSO mentions 10-60 days.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_3.7._Fixing_Record_Date.
> And my question is how THAT requirement needs to be conveyed.
> E.g. Do the trustees have to give 10-60 days notice of the recordation
> date?
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 

Simple answer. Yes. 

More complex answer. For a bricks and mortar company, the AGM would 
be held with voters present in the room, so notice of the AGM and record
date would be the same.

Assembling in New Mexico or voting for trustees in IRC is inconvenient 
for a lot of members, so we have an extended electronic election.  The 
10-60 days notice applies to the recording date too but its a set of 
different dates as the voting is moved out of the AGM. The vote for 
trustees formally being a part of the AGM.

It follows that this applies to all votes of members for all meetings of
members where the voting and meeting are decoupled in this way.  

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]