Hi all!
Ok, found some time to glance this through, here are my reflections on the
matter and proposal on how to proceed:
> Hi Yoshiki,
>
> Thank you again for your service to our community. I think we need to do
> something to replace both board members.
Generally I agree with that, more below.
> There are no formal ways to handle this but it is my understanding that we
> need to come up with something formal in order to be accepted to the
> Software Freedom Conservancy program. Although I could be remembering
> that
> wrong, I believe it was in the contract that Craig sent out for review.
I have not read it. I leave the task to check that to the board (I don't
like the word "Leadership", sorry).
> My suggestion would be to allow this to be discussed publicly since there
> is
> no formal policy. It would be a good chance for us to all agree what the
> policy should be. I would be happy to propose this to the community or we
> could have Göran do it.
Mmmm, my time is a bit scarce right now - last night's hacking emptied my
"hack-during-nights-account". :)
So I leave it in your hands (Ron or Ken) to post to squeak-dev and get the
thread going - feel free to copy/pase/edit from this post, see below.
> I think we can simply present a timeline for deciding on our options.
Yes, be careful in selecting the subject line so that people notice the
thread - and set a timelimit to... 2 weeks? Should be enough to give us
enough "fodder" to make some kind of decision - if of course the decision
is ours to make - one could argue that it is up to the board too. Hehe,
well, that meta-question can be part of the thread too.
> I
> think there are some problems with just selecting from the list of members
> that ran last year. Situations may have changed and some people, not
> having
> received enough votes to be elected, may not want to server now. That
> could
> be difficult. How far do we go down the list? Also there may be some
> very
> active members that are better prepared to serve in the interim position.
> There may also be some that agree that we should not replace anyone but
> just
> wait for the next election.
>
> There is still 6 months until the next election so I think it would be
> good
> to replace both members. What does everyone think?
I presume we have these options to pick from:
1. Do nothing. This option needs to have a minimum limit on number of
board members before a whole re-election kicks in. IMHO a full re-election
would be logical in that case. Given our "lack" of activity this seems
less optimal to me.
2. Fill empty seats in a whole open fashion not favoring runners up from
previous election result. There are pros and cons of course, it is "fair"
in its simplicity and it offers a bigger palette of people etc etc. The
con would be ... well, not sure I see a con actually - the runners up
would still be "obvious picks" anyway. This would be my personal choice at
this time I think.
3. Fill empty seats focusing on runners up *first* and then openly only if
those "run out". I personally think there may be more problems with this
option than there are benefits. Let's say there is an obvious very active
choice in the open - and a very passive person who was runner up. Would
that seem fair?
4. Fill empty seats only using runners up and if those run out - move to
option #1 above. This would be the "respect the election"-option I guess,
but I personally feel it is a bit restrictive. After all, we only sit 1
year at a time - not 4. :)
I can not see any more options - can you? Finally we also need to "decide"
if the decision we will make in say 2 weeks of time after the discussion
on squeak-dev is ours to make (Election team with me as leader) or if it
is up to the board.
> I don't think we should do anything until we hear from Göran.
Now you heard :) - feel free to fire the gun at the squeak-dev list on
behalf of me/us. And let the mayhem ensue.
> Ron Teitelbaum
regards, Göran
