Thank you, Ken,
As I wrote, the general trend is to "bring up" two from the previous election. That would be less complex and it is more or less transparent (even though it might look like an "after-the-fact" decision). I somehow remember that there was a discussion about this case somewhere on the board mailing list or elections mailing list, I/we'll wait a day or so for more discussion.
-- Yoshiki
At Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:25:02 -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
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