[gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Denis Dupeyron]

During the last council meeting we discussed voting by email, see the
log at [1]. What should we do about proxies if we make that happen?
What's the impact on the slacker rule?

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100308.txt

Re: [gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Richard Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1193 bytes --]

On 04/17/2010 07:46 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> During the last council meeting we discussed voting by email, see the
> log at [1]. What should we do about proxies if we make that happen?

They clearly aren't needed.

> What's the impact on the slacker rule?

It should be stricken.

Instead, a majority of council members can vote to impeach if warranted, 
and an election is immediately held.  The impeached councilor is 
eligible to re-run.  The impeached councilor still is in power until 
voted out.

If some councilor is making a big difference in Gentoo, I don't want to 
see them booted simply because they couldn't make two meeting dates, and 
there is no reason they should have to appoint a sub (though they should 
of course be able to).  Ditto for the whole mess where the council 
managed to miss-communicate a date and we had to hold another election. 
  What value did that add?

We're adults.  Let's elect council members once per year, and have 
provisions for problems, but let's not micro-manage how often they must 
meet/etc.

I'm not aware of any serious organization that has these kinds of rules 
for their board of directors...

Rich



[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3670 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Richard Freeman]

On 04/17/2010 07:46 PM, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> During the last council meeting we discussed voting by email, see the
> log at [1]. What should we do about proxies if we make that happen?

They clearly aren't needed.

> What's the impact on the slacker rule?

It should be stricken.

Instead, a majority of council members can vote to impeach if warranted, 
and an election is immediately held.  The impeached councilor is 
eligible to re-run.  The impeached councilor still is in power until 
voted out.

If some councilor is making a big difference in Gentoo, I don't want to 
see them booted simply because they couldn't make two meeting dates, and 
there is no reason they should have to appoint a sub (though they should 
of course be able to).  Ditto for the whole mess where the council 
managed to miss-communicate a date and we had to hold another election. 
   What value did that add?

We're adults.  Let's elect council members once per year, and have 
provisions for problems, but let's not micro-manage how often they must 
meet/etc.

I'm not aware of any serious organization that has these kinds of rules 
for their board of directors...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1854 bytes --]

On 2010.04.18 00:46, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> During the last council meeting we discussed voting by email, see the
> log at [1]. What should we do about proxies if we make that happen?
> What's the impact on the slacker rule?
> 
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100308.txt
> 
> 
> 

Team,

I have some strong views on voting by email.

1. Voting by email should be encouraged. This allows things to be 
resolved on the mailing lists and never come to a council meeting.
It speeds the workflow and it therefore a good thing.

2. Voting by email in advance, on a topic to be *discussed* at a 
meeting should not be permitted. In the event that the discussion 
turns up something unexpected, there is no opportunity to vote in the 
light of the new information. That further discussion is deemed to be 
required, shows that not all the evidence is in and the council is not 
ready to vote.

For the sake of clarity, if its just to announce a decision with no 
opportunity for discussion, an email vote in advance of the 
announcement is fine.

3. email votes post discussion/meeting are fine. This allows GLEP39 to 
be updated to remove both slacker marks and proxies which van only be a 
good thing.

Its perfectly possible for a member to serve properly on the council 
and never show up to a meeting. With the span of time zones with the 
current council, its already difficult for them to find a time to meet 
and email voting would ease the pressure.

I trust the council to eject one of their own that was not pulling his/
her weight if they did not resign their post when they realised they 
could not carry it out. In turn, that allows all the slacker driven 
elections to be dropped.

-- 
Regards,

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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Richard Freeman]

On 04/20/2010 01:40 PM, Roy Bamford wrote:
>
> 3. email votes post discussion/meeting are fine. This allows GLEP39 to
> be updated to remove both slacker marks and proxies which van only be a
> good thing.
>

++

There is no reason that votes need to predominantly take place during 
meetings.  Sure, maybe for time-critical stuff this is desirable, but 
there is no reason that day-to-day items can't wait a few hours for 
everybody to read the logs and vote.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20-04-2010 17:40, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2010.04.18 00:46, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> During the last council meeting we discussed voting by email, see the
>> log at [1]. What should we do about proxies if we make that happen?
>> What's the impact on the slacker rule?
>>
>> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100308.txt
> 
> Team,
> 
> I have some strong views on voting by email.
> 
> 1. Voting by email should be encouraged. This allows things to be 
> resolved on the mailing lists and never come to a council meeting.
> It speeds the workflow and it therefore a good thing.
> 
> 2. Voting by email in advance, on a topic to be *discussed* at a 
> meeting should not be permitted. In the event that the discussion 
> turns up something unexpected, there is no opportunity to vote in the 
> light of the new information. That further discussion is deemed to be 
> required, shows that not all the evidence is in and the council is not 
> ready to vote.

I agree with Roy about the usefulness of voting by email and the
"danger" of voting before meeting.

> For the sake of clarity, if its just to announce a decision with no 
> opportunity for discussion, an email vote in advance of the 
> announcement is fine.

I think this falls in the already exiting rule that nothing prevents the
council of having impromptu meetings as deemed required and announcing
decisions. This obviously doesn't apply to GLEP votes which have their
own rules.

> 3. email votes post discussion/meeting are fine. This allows GLEP39 to 
> be updated to remove both slacker marks and proxies which van only be a 
> good thing.

I don't agree with Roy on this point as I think we still need some rules
to ensure that the council members don't go MIA or that the body simply
stops working. We can have more lenient rules, but they should still
exist, IMHO.
I do agree that dropping the ability of council members to send proxies
to a meeting can avoid issues and is thus desirable.

> Its perfectly possible for a member to serve properly on the council 
> and never show up to a meeting. With the span of time zones with the 
> current council, its already difficult for them to find a time to meet 
> and email voting would ease the pressure.

I don't think it's desirable to have council members that don't show up
to a single meeting or that hardly have direct talk with the other
council members. If we ever get a council with people spread so far in
the world that it isn't possible to find any schedule to host a meeting
with everyone present, I would prefer the council to have rotating
meetings to allow each member to attend a meeting from time to time.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=876+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-project] Re: [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Denis Dupeyron]

Summary for this topic. Here's the list of propositions we need to
discuss during the meeting:

 - There should be no vote by email.

 - There are by-email vote for casual stuff and in-meeting votes when
it's important. However, council members are not allowed to vote by
email for in-meeting votes in order to not encourage slacking.

 - We allow council members to vote by email on meeting votes after
the meeting in case they couldn't attend it.

 - We allow council members to vote by email in advance when they know
they won't be able to attend a meeting. In that case they are not
considered as having missed the meeting.

 - Same as above and we allow those who voted by email to revise their
vote after the meeting for a certain period of time (for example 48
hours after the meeting log is posted).

Denis.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 05:23:18PM -0600, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> Summary for this topic. Here's the list of propositions we need to
> discuss during the meeting:

One comment on the potential voting by email, the vote-in-IRC has been
nice that voting is public, so could any email voting be conducted on
the project/council lists, and NOT on the council alias.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [GLEP 39 overhaul] Voting by email, proxies and slacker rule.

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 14-05-2010 23:50, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 05:23:18PM -0600, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
>> Summary for this topic. Here's the list of propositions we need to
>> discuss during the meeting:
> 
> One comment on the potential voting by email, the vote-in-IRC has been
> nice that voting is public, so could any email voting be conducted on
> the project/council lists, and NOT on the council alias.

An alternative is for the individual votes to be cast to the alias but
the result, including how each member voted, to be published in the end
- - as imho is required by the current rules to ensure transparency.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=Ymja
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----