From: Cees De Groot An alternative: ask the first runner-up of the previous elections to join.
I'm not sure whether this is appropriate or not as a general principle, although I have no problems with it in this case. We had more candidates than board members, but not by much. If many more board members were to leave, the voters would be stuck with me on the board, when I came firmly last in the elections - hardly a ringing endorsement :-).
It's probably "documented" in some mailing list archive, but the idea was to hold elections every year around the same time, which would be February...
That was my understanding: the posts were for 12 months.
- Peter
To me either policy seems ok as such, but choosing the course of action each time is not (because then the board members are effectively choosing whether to let the next candidate in). So I ask the board to make and publish a policy on this matter (possibly with discussion on squeak-dev, or whatever) or ask the election team to.
The same applies to other matters related to the semantics of the elections, such as the authority and responsibilities the board has.
Daniel
Peter Crowther wrote:
From: Cees De Groot An alternative: ask the first runner-up of the previous elections to join.
I'm not sure whether this is appropriate or not as a general principle, although I have no problems with it in this case. We had more candidates than board members, but not by much. If many more board members were to leave, the voters would be stuck with me on the board, when I came firmly last in the elections - hardly a ringing endorsement :-).
It's probably "documented" in some mailing list archive, but the idea was to hold elections every year around the same time, which would be February...
That was my understanding: the posts were for 12 months.
- Peter
Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
All,
I strongly believe that we should try, if at all possible, to have a full board. Whether or not we elect a new member or use the runner up, the member should be replaced immediately. This could help to elevate unexpected and negative consequences of team politics.
Ron Teitelbaum
From: Daniel Vainsencher Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:49 PM
To me either policy seems ok as such, but choosing the course of action each time is not (because then the board members are effectively choosing whether to let the next candidate in). So I ask the board to make and publish a policy on this matter (possibly with discussion on squeak-dev, or whatever) or ask the election team to.
The same applies to other matters related to the semantics of the elections, such as the authority and responsibilities the board has.
Daniel
Peter Crowther wrote:
From: Cees De Groot An alternative: ask the first runner-up of the previous elections to join.
I'm not sure whether this is appropriate or not as a general principle, although I have no problems with it in this case. We had more candidates than board members, but not by much. If many more board members were to leave, the voters would be stuck with me on the board, when I came firmly last in the elections - hardly a ringing endorsement :-).
It's probably "documented" in some mailing list archive, but the idea was to hold elections every year around the same time, which would be February...
That was my understanding: the posts were for 12 months.
- Peter
Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Daniel Vainsencher -
Peter Crowther -
Ron Teitelbaum