Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Gentoo Foundation: A second election

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:22 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:42 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > If Trustees can fill the vacancies, then there's no point in omitting
> > _reopen_nominations. They could still pick any candidates from below.
> >
> > So, I think the procedure as announced by antarus makes sense.
>
> If the election itself fails to actually elect anybody, they can
> actually appoint anybody they wish I believe.  (ie, if the reopen
> option wins they could just appoint drobbins or a cousin or whatever,
> though obviously it would make more sense to just appoint somebody on
> the ballot, preferably the one with the most votes.)

I don't believe it is permissible to appoint 'a cousin.' Trustees must
be Gentoo Foundation members and probably also must be active
developers (per section 5.2 of the bylaws.)

>
> They actually can do that right now without another election, though I
> do think the course they're taking is a sensible one.

It seems rather pointless to add a reopen_nominations option to the
election, then have a tie and not reopen_nominations. Hence my
preferences for this solution.

>
> We could spend a lot of time debating the ideal election process, but
> in the end if you have only three volunteers for three slots, it is a
> bit of a moot argument...

This is my biggest challenge overall; the community spends significant
time debating the 'best' way to do some things, but honestly I'm not
sure we always need the 'best' way; we just need *a* way. If the
crappy way and the best way generate the same outcome; I'm not super
eager to devote hours and hours of discussion to generate the same
output; I think there are better ways to spend our time.

-A

>
> --
> Rich
>