Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Election Results

stephane ducasse stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Sat Mar 10 08:01:56 UTC 2007


sounds good.

On 9 mars 07, at 18:49, Doug Way wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list