All,

I agree with Ken, we should be concerned with seating someone on the board
by some circumstance post election without having any form of redress.  

Another concern is that the election could be months past, so would someone
that ran for a seat really be available when the call comes?  I think I like
Cees original idea of having elections if there is still enough time for the
new board member to make a difference (the amount of time TBD), and I like
Daniels idea of having a new election if a majority of the board resigns.

The issue raised last time is how much the community wants to be bothered
with having elections.  So is having an election every time a board member
resigns is too much for this community?

Ron Teitelbaum
Squeak Elections Team Member

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Ken Causey
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:08 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results
> 
> On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 22:54 +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> > This is all theoretical, but - say there are 8 candidates one of
> > which gets no vote at all - so everybody dislikes him. But if one of
> > the board members resigns, he would get in?
> >
> > - Bert -
> 
> Josh points out a valid point regarding the Nobody point but I can't
> help but note that (tongue mostly in cheek) we could probably do with
> some sort of impeachment process (Gathering of signatures/agreement of
> 10% of voters in the original election followed by voting on articles of
> impeachment by voters chosen by same mechansim as general election
> perhaps.)
> 
> Ken