On 18/04/18 06:18, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> Here's an imperfect proposal that aims to make everyone (un)happy
> by combining the different requirements into a consistent system
> for Trustee elections:
>
> 1. Elections can have up to 2 nomination+voting rounds.  If the first
> round does not fill all the seats, a second (shorter) round is run.
> If the second round does not fill all the remaining seats, Trustees
> appoint the seats as they do now.
>
> 2. The elections start early to account for the possibility
> of the additional second round.  If elections finish on the first round,
> the new Trustees wait for the start of their term.
>
> 3. Both rounds include additional options -- '_reopen_nominations'
> for the first round, and '_appoint_by_trustees' for the second.  Only
> candidates that get voted above those options are immediately accepted
> into the seats.  The remaining candidates can still be (s)elected
> in the next step.
>
> 4. Voting is held when there's at least one nominee.  If there are
> no nominees in the round, the voting phase is skipped and the next step
> is run immediately.
>
> 5. The recording date is to be determined by Trustees, independently,
> but will occur no later than 2 months before the AGM (requested
> by robbat2).
>
> The idea is that the proposal includes all of it: an explicit ability
> to vote against a nominee, second round to give people additional chance
> to accept nominations if the first round does not bring satisfying
> candidates, and fixed timeline + the ability of Trustees to fill slots
> in order to make sure that the Board is complete for its term.
>
> Determining the exact timeline I'm leaving up to the Trustees.
>
Sounds like quite a workable proposal to me.