[Elections] Filling Vacancy

[Ron Teitelbaum]

Hi Yoshiki,

Thank you again for your service to our community.  I think we need to do
something to replace both board members.

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.

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.

I think we can simply present a timeline for deciding on our options.  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 saw that there is a
lot going on with licensing.  Do you feel that your goals for this year
require more people on the board? 

I don't think we should do anything until we hear from Göran.

Ron Teitelbaum

> -----Original Message-----
> From: elections-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:elections-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Yoshiki Ohshima
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:59 PM
> To: goran at krampe.se; elections at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: [Elections] Filling Vacancy
> 
>   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
> _______________________________________________
> Elections mailing list
> Elections at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections