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
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. 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 _______________________________________________ Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
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
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
Jecel and I have been looking but can't find anything. The only time it would have come up explicitly was when Stef resigned in 2006. At that time no replacement was selected. It does seem unlikely that no discussion has occurred, but I can't find it. The fact has been stated, more than once, but I can't find any instance where it is questioned or an alternative is offerred. Before the last election Ron clearly states there is no standing policy
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2008-February/000223.h...
and as far as I can tell that went unquestioned.
Ken
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 13:52 -0700, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
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
At Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:05:30 -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
[1 <text/plain (quoted-printable)>] Jecel and I have been looking but can't find anything. The only time it would have come up explicitly was when Stef resigned in 2006. At that time no replacement was selected. It does seem unlikely that no discussion has occurred, but I can't find it. The fact has been stated, more than once, but I can't find any instance where it is questioned or an alternative is offerred. Before the last election Ron clearly states there is no standing policy
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2008-February/000223.h...
and as far as I can tell that went unquestioned.
Thank you for checking! Last time it happened it was just a member quitting, so there was not strong urge to make things prepared, I would guess (well, that was how I felt). This time the second person is making the room for others, and it feels like we should fill.
-- Yoshiki
But, of course, someone could argue that we should go with five members, as there is no set policy...
On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 14:25 -0700, Yoshiki Ohshima wrote:
At Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:05:30 -0500, Ken Causey wrote:
[1 <text/plain (quoted-printable)>] Jecel and I have been looking but can't find anything. The only time it would have come up explicitly was when Stef resigned in 2006. At that time no replacement was selected. It does seem unlikely that no discussion has occurred, but I can't find it. The fact has been stated, more than once, but I can't find any instance where it is questioned or an alternative is offerred. Before the last election Ron clearly states there is no standing policy
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/2008-February/000223.h...
and as far as I can tell that went unquestioned.
Thank you for checking! Last time it happened it was just a member quitting, so there was not strong urge to make things prepared, I would guess (well, that was how I felt). This time the second person is making the room for others, and it feels like we should fill.
-- Yoshiki
But, of course, someone could argue that we should go with five members, as there is no set policy...
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2007-March/114697.htm...
Just goes to show there is very little at this point which has not been said. ;)
Ken
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@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:elections- bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Yoshiki Ohshima Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:59 PM To: goran@krampe.se; elections@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@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
<de-lurk - feel free to ignore me if it's appropriate :-)>
From: Ron Teitelbaum My suggestion would be to allow this to be discussed publicly since there is no formal policy.
Agree.
How far do we go down the list?
That would be my key question. The number of people in the Squeak community willing to stand isn't large. Can someone stand for election, confident that even though everyone loathes me they will eventually get onto the board as those who are liked, or are merely tolerated, serve and leave? I'd like to think that the process avoids that, so I'd have a personal preference *not* simply to go down the list of previous candidates.
- Peter
Meh. Last-minute decision to change person in the example, missed one...
From: Peter Crowther Can someone stand for election, confident that even though everyone loathes me
s/me/them/
they will eventually get onto the board as those who are liked, or are merely tolerated, serve and leave?
- Peter
Hi folks!
Just wanted to let you know I will be reading through this thread and respond during the day - I am at a customer. :)
regards, Göran
elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Göran Krampe -
Ken Causey -
Peter Crowther -
Ron Teitelbaum -
Yoshiki Ohshima