From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 920111382C5 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BB726E08F6; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from avasout06.plus.net (avasout06.plus.net [212.159.14.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743CAE08F6 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 05:23:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.6.147] ([212.159.46.162]) by smtp with ESMTP id 8fYffKJRzy3ji8fYgfrWdd; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 06:23:06 +0100 X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=fL8XI6Se c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:117 a=RuViaDnnNG9rfPLW4VJocg==:17 a=13zjGPudsaEWiJwPRgMA:9 a=E5KB1G7k5Vvo6i2viCAA:9 a=7Zwj6sZBwVKJAoWSPKxL6X1jA+E=:19 a=nrUlzzO__bRdWYjg:21 a=Q2b1WgFDVl927JhT:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Smx5Vc4RWbOdLMMTskwA:9 a=ONNS8QRKHyMA:10 Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] New Trustee voting proposal (including _reopen_nominations) To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org References: <1524028704.7419.2.camel@gentoo.org> From: "M. J. Everitt" Openpgp: id=BA266E0525CFAB101523351B4C30334F93C22371 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 06:22:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1524028704.7419.2.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="S01xY1oeUAe4jkdP6Dya31ylDjYKE39I0" X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfFGKzEOrMZDZufNtpEp7ALikdxwRj3hd+ZTaBtz+VofpnXpFCJRJrmlery4dd1SKejBWJhZ9UngLePB/xGmx6dQT7/xTOxbyLQZ+23hd/xjmrPYs3V6h wsz7Q8KyGKVMBxGIFfCVkmYxBAd9PVfYfGV47F4ja3oy3F8G76GD1HWuvMLN98mxPTGNOCsANv/pIg== X-Archives-Salt: 7e7fd727-90ec-4547-856d-4de567b224fa X-Archives-Hash: f11334be34823742194ebc73b570cd2f This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --S01xY1oeUAe4jkdP6Dya31ylDjYKE39I0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="WQLguoi8LybPgDXcA1MnNa3lYsFH8JA2E"; protected-headers="v1" From: "M. J. Everitt" To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] New Trustee voting proposal (including _reopen_nominations) References: <1524028704.7419.2.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1524028704.7419.2.camel@gentoo.org> --WQLguoi8LybPgDXcA1MnNa3lYsFH8JA2E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-GB On 18/04/18 06:18, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny 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 chanc= e > 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. --WQLguoi8LybPgDXcA1MnNa3lYsFH8JA2E-- --S01xY1oeUAe4jkdP6Dya31ylDjYKE39I0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJa1tY5AAoJEGPnxnn01DHd28cP/28GMkPpLbdbqwYoML5xHCXR 3IvxwhHnJWZO+EtDjXWolPjVm1YgZ/B9rI/lA4rEwoowLCwgDFP6A5gFqX+UFIqp NlpQ8Fe4GTlwghYhmoT00iwZx/qGdlMz+SikVat4/2Q+0rxhqxVZGPWISTrlQ4uX JyG88c/Wdg0CUlbt25xoroVFUJaI+k5fSqInj/fXOwODPHPcYFw7QriBtu3+f6hS go+KRQrbtqSbzEh8J4cCi8OqW1CDMniJ34aEBNpP8tvYidzg9dGJnuZknvsgVYrt YHkoSKg0ovG+6ZOetiFUehkDeVqAWcFIIeGI/m0Yi+TwzHucR2fcRw9NW/LIQgLs mp88/ykheSy5As6rxRS1cvFP0jZRI2Xh01UfuN5i2TBkTn6g2buZ2eaZAXzYzVLO Gb75AkTbt39XnxmBnbdVrCr+fNqagfzQ55s8759Opn+yoAsCICETBcdcrJ9M2foy 5AWOLfVjl4bm2889x5tJE9g2ZMV5JGrG1fjJmddaiTooQXzZVnsdcyBXY4r6d+n2 LoHnVAD23OttQTiYC9K9z2erdNklX37qOm2MKSco3+a5E3XTHJC2i/QVlF1wT8o0 WKvlcywgqlvM1xdcDt9OxIMKcaVORmgg/fuHaTUu2bLFbYCXydRau0QZBg5grz/G 6ITp+CcDo05012tOkic9 =LPgN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --S01xY1oeUAe4jkdP6Dya31ylDjYKE39I0--