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