In the case of a resigning board member, there are probably 3 options
for how to proceed:

1. Select the next-highest vote getter from the previous election
2. Hold a special election to re-elect someone for that position
3. Don't refill the position, carry on with a smaller board

For what it's worth, I'm a member of a different board, and our board
has a fixed rule in place (as part of our by-laws) which is a
combination of #1 and #3:  We select the next-highest vote getter, but
if we're less than 3 months from the next election then we don't fill
the position.  This rule has worked pretty well for us.  (This board is
a low-tech, non-Internet-based board which has been around for 50 years,
but the principles remain the same.)

More specifically, if the next-highest vote getter is not willing to
serve, we proceed to the next-highest vote getter after that.  (This
actually happened last year with our board, the next-highest person
declined to serve, but the person after that was willing.)  As far as
treating "Nobody" as a bottom limit, that's not a bad idea, although
that ties your by-laws to the more specific CIVS voting process, but
that may be OK.

Personally, I think #2 (holding a special election) is probably too much
overhead for a volunteer board, and not worth the effort.

Typically, it's the job of the board to amend its own by-laws, so I'd
imagine the board would discuss and vote on this internally, rather than
having the elections team make a decision.

- Doug


----- Original message -----
From: "Ron Teitelbaum" <Ron at USMedRec.com>
To: "'The general-purpose Squeak developers list'"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:23:59 -0500
Subject: RE: Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results

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