[Elections] I am really worried...

[Peter Crowther]

[Directed to elections and Goran privately.  Goran, please feel free to
reply privately; I reserve the prerogative to forward any response or
portions of it to the list if I feel it would benefit the process]

> From: [...] goran at krampe.se
> And please, please don't start *arguing* with me -
> because that would just make things even worse.

Punch us and then put your glasses on and say we can't punch back?
Goran, that's simply cowardly - and if you claim it's a prerogative of
being the boss, I'll point to this as exactly the kind of abuse of
position that I'm concerned about.

> This team is not getting disolved after the election

How do you know?  That is up to a subsequent administration, not this
one - and definitely not you, as you're stepping down.

> Get a simple voting system in place ASAP
> and make it transparent.

Agree.

> I agree with the "worries" about accusations
> later on about how legitimate the election was - but come on, 
> keep it on a practical level here.

The coup was perceived as illegitimate by a proportion of the Squeak
community, the merger with SqF was murky at best.  Are you *surprised*
the people who care enough to subscribe to the list have worries about
the perceived legitimacy of the election?

> Personally I would actually prefer to just
> hack up a system that accepts votes from all subscribers to squeak-dev
> and add a confirmation email mechanism to ensure one vote per person.

Thank you for your input.  Speaking personally, I would note that it
could have been sent in a less antagonistic manner; you probably haven't
encouraged the team to consider your view dispassionately.

> 3. You have so far only done one thing: discussing a voting system.

You should possibly read rather than skim before coming in with all guns
blazing.  I believe the candidate selection mechanism - as opposed to
the voter selection or the voting mechanisms - is so uncontroversial as
to have gone through on the nod in the middle of some other messages.

> you have done nothing on the most
> important task of finding candidates and building an awareness of what
> is coming on squeak-dev. If we don't have candidates it 
> doesn't *matter* what voting system we have!

Agree entirely.  The team's communication on squeak-dev has been
shocking; it needs someone to act as that.  I'd be happy to act as a
communicator, but would need to be on the team first.

> 4. You are actually IMHO missing the absolutely most 
> important risk. And
> no, it isn't fraud - it is the lack of participation.

I suspect the percentage participation will be higher than in the
original coup.

> And
> if the voting system for example only allows voting on one 
> candidate for
> the board - then hey, it would make it even worse.

Again: read the mails.  I'm not aware of a single system that has been
proposed here that is limited to a single candidate.  Why raise a
spectre that doesn't exist?

> PS. Why haven't you tried making this team larger?

The team process encourages consensus.  Read the archives.  Think about
the points of view that have been expressed.  Do you honestly believe
that it would have been easier to reach consensus with more people
on-list?  'cos I don't.

		- Peter