[Elections] Election Team Kickoff

[Lex Spoon]

Well, I agree in general, unsurprisingly!  Votes are needed to
legitimize things and to provide accountability.  This in turn gives the
people in charge a vital communication line to the people they
represent.  In turn, voting requires defining who gets to vote.

My only reservation about using a reputation system to grant voting
rights.  It is true that using Squeak People's reputation system would
be objective and simple, albeit mysterious.  If we lack alternatives
then that's what we should go for.  However, after a little
experimentation, I see that SqueakPeople does not capture the people I
think of as the Squeak community!

What I did was to use Google to search for some Squeak people I have
collaborated with.  The following people, happily, have accounts on the
site:

	Marcus Denker
	Stephane Ducasse
	Josh Gargus
	Ted Kaehler
	Dan Ingalls
	Andreas Raab
	Scott Wallace


On the other hand, the following people don't even have an account. 
They aren't merely ranked incorrectly.  As far as SP is concerned, they
do not exist!

	Mark Guzdial
	Bolot Karimbaev
	Alan Kay
	KK Lamberty
	John Maloney
	Jeff Pearce
	Jeff Rick  (in fact, no "Jeff"'s at all!)
	Kim Rose
	Jim Rowan
	Nathanael Shaerli


Aside from theoretical issues, our best reputation system in practice
does not seem to define a very good set of voters.  I think we would all
agree that the people in the second list ought to get votes....


Here's an alternative for people to chew on.  How about defining the
initial voting group as anyone who meets one of the following criteria?

	1  posted code to a Squeak bug tracker
	2  posted to squeak-dev
	3  made 1000 lines of Squeak code publically available
	4  assembled an etoy with at least 3 lines of script in it
	5  published a paper based on Squeak
	6  gave a talk to 5+ people based on Squeak


How does this list sound as the crowd that gets voting rights?

-Lex