[Elections] Checking in / next steps

[Cees De Groot]

On 1/11/06, Peter Crowther <Peter at ozzard.org> wrote:

> [...] a second is the way that some subset of
> them have chosen to use that power without much consultation (yes, I
> will state event(s) and name(s) that I consider to fall into this
> category if you wish to enquire further);

I'd be happy to hear that. But probably in private mail, it is
certainly off-topic for the Elections list.


> I suspect our initial choice of system, within a wide range of options,
> will be a non-event.  The community will get a system that works at
> somewhere between 80% and 90% of what it could do; and that will be good
> enough for the community to use that system to decide to move to a
> system that is more closely aligned to its wishes.

And that's probably the heart of the matter. These elections are a
first test of the water. Whatever the team comes up with, there'll be
criticism. It's version 1.0. We'll test it by running this year's
board elections. Then, the new board, which is more democratic than
the current board, but probably not 100% optimally democratic, can
evaluate with the Elections team and the community what can be done
better, and then there's a year to improve. Which, I think, is al the
more reason to start off with something simple and improvable...

(thanks for the Nomic reference. Forgotten about it...)