[Elections] Filling Vacancy

[Ken Causey]

On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 15:19 -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
> To my knowledge there is no policy.  Perhaps someone will correct me.
> My own time on the Board was related to this except that it was decided
> to increase the size of the Board, not that anyone resigned.  At that
> time the Board simply decided on their own who to add to the roster.
> 
> This is not an ideal solution.  But any other solution seems overly
> complex, at least too complex to implement without prior planning.  When
> I served on the Board, the pre-existing members, if I remember
> correctly, had not been elected but were the founders, so to speak.  So
> they had no pool of runners-up to pick from.  Having this pool does
> improve the situation.  So my opinion is that having the remaining
> Leadership members (actually I see no reason that the leaving members
> shouldn't also have a say) pick from this pool seems very workable to
> me.
> 
> But this is an issue that needs further discussion.

Let me clarify, I don't think too much discussion is warranted in this
case, I think the Leadership needs to discuss it, with any input that
shows up in the next few days, and make a decision.  What I mean is that
the community as a whole needs to discuss the general policy for future
instances.

> I'm personally of
> the opinion that the voting mechanism could be used in more instances
> than we currently do.  To that end I think it is worth investigating
> what can be done to make it as efficient as possible.  I've done a
> little work in that area already in making it relatively easy to get a
> pastable voter list at any time in moments.  What else could be done?
> 
> Ken
> 
> On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 12:58 -0700, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> >   Tim Rowledge decided to quit from the "Squeak Leadership" (Squeak
> > Board) while ago, and Dan Ingalls decided to "make room" another
> > person who can more actively attend the bi-weekly conference call.
> > So, now we have two seats available.
> > 
> >   The Leadership members generally think that the runner-up(s) in the
> > last election should be promoted.  But was there a policy?  Does
> > anybody in the team think that there is an issue with it?  Or was
> > there any other ways we once agreed?
> > 
> >   Let us know your ideas.  Thanks!
> > 
> > -- Yoshiki

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/attachments/20080910/496ae6c5/attachment.pgp