Hi Göran and the Elections Team,
Well I do hope that the resounding silence doesnt put you off any. A big welcome Göran from me as our new leader! And welcome everyone to a new squeak election. We had a very difficult time last year getting anyone to discuss anything about the election. I have to say I did expect more reaction to the change.
I suppose it is time to come up with a schedule. Last year we decided to have a nomination period, a campaigning period and then a voting period. We have been asked to extend the voting period of 3 days because some people didn't check their email before voting closed.
Also we had a very difficult time getting people to step up and nominate themselves for the board. The period between nominations and voting was almost completely silent except for my attempt to get candidates to answer questions; I would consider that effort to not be worth the time. Some never answered any questions. And very few questions were submitted by the community.
So I guess my suggestion would be a longer nomination period and voting period and a shorter campaigning period. But overall it would be nice if we could still wrap it all up in just over a month.
What do you think?
Ron Teitelbaum Squeak Elections Team Member
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 20:55 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
Hi Göran and the Elections Team,
Welcome Göran!
Well I do hope that the resounding silence doesn’t put you off any. A big welcome Göran from me as our new leader! And welcome everyone to a new squeak election. We had a very difficult time last year getting anyone to discuss anything about the election. I have to say I did expect more reaction to the change.
I can't say it surprises me that this is rather a thankless job. It's one of those things where if it all goes smoothly, nobody really cares. So I suggest that you be happy with the comparative silence and simply listen to the small amount of criticism received, which it seems like you are doing.
I suppose it is time to come up with a schedule. Last year we decided to have a nomination period, a campaigning period and then a voting period. We have been asked to extend the voting period of 3 days because some people didn't check their email before voting closed.
If you don't mind, please remind me of the actual schedule. I certainly have no problem with extending the voting period.
Also we had a very difficult time getting people to step up and nominate themselves for the board. The period between nominations and voting was almost completely silent except for my attempt to get candidates to answer questions; I would consider that effort to not be worth the time. Some never answered any questions. And very few questions were submitted by the community.
So I guess my suggestion would be a longer nomination period and voting period and a shorter campaigning period. But overall it would be nice if we could still wrap it all up in just over a month.
I also have no problems with these ideas. I suggest frankly that, while the elections team itself probably needs to have a schedule it follows, that you not try to enforce on the community only as much of the schedule as is necessary.
1. Early on the community needs to be reminded to get setup for the minimal voting requirements: SqP account, email address valid, certified. And that this should be repeated in all communications related to voting.
2. If the nominees are expected to participate, as a group, in any events prior to voting (such as a questionaire, or whatever) then they should be notified of some sort of deadline for nominations prior to these events but as late as possible. Similarly I see no reason not to request nominations from the beginning and in every communication up to the point that nominations need to stop, if any.
3. Obviously then there is the voting period itself which clearly must have a hard starting and stopping point. Again I suggest that the information about this be communicated as soon as possible (so that anyone who gets email rarely has little excuse about not being warned) and as often as possible until the voting period has ended.
What do you think?
Ron Teitelbaum Squeak Elections Team Member
Ken
Hey Ken,
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Causey
If you don't mind, please remind me of the actual schedule. I certainly have no problem with extending the voting period.
We had 2 weeks nomination, 2 weeks reminders to register, and 3 days voting.
Also we had a very difficult time getting people to step up and nominate themselves for the board. The period between nominations and voting was almost completely silent except for my attempt to get candidates to
answer
questions; I would consider that effort to not be worth the time. Some never answered any questions. And very few questions were submitted by
the
community.
So I guess my suggestion would be a longer nomination period and voting period and a shorter campaigning period. But overall it would be nice
if we
could still wrap it all up in just over a month.
I also have no problems with these ideas. I suggest frankly that, while the elections team itself probably needs to have a schedule it follows, that you not try to enforce on the community only as much of the schedule as is necessary.
- Early on the community needs to be reminded to get setup for the
minimal voting requirements: SqP account, email address valid, certified. And that this should be repeated in all communications related to voting.
I agree
- If the nominees are expected to participate, as a group, in any
events prior to voting (such as a questionaire, or whatever) then they should be notified of some sort of deadline for nominations prior to these events but as late as possible. Similarly I see no reason not to request nominations from the beginning and in every communication up to the point that nominations need to stop, if any.
I'm not sure what we can do since I spent a lot of time trying to solicit questions last year, then when I finally just came up with questions I thought were softballs, some of the candidates complained that I was biased in some way.
It would be nice to have some event but what? With what questions? I was thinking we would just skip this instead of trying again. What do you think?
- Obviously then there is the voting period itself which clearly must
have a hard starting and stopping point. Again I suggest that the information about this be communicated as soon as possible (so that anyone who gets email rarely has little excuse about not being warned) and as often as possible until the voting period has ended.
I agree. I would think that 7 days would eliminate most problems. We could also send out daily reminders about voting during those 7 days.
So 3 weeks nomination, 1 week campaigning, 1 week voting sounds good to me.
That would be Nomination until Feb 22, campaigning till Feb 29 (Happy Leap Year) Voting starts Saturday Morning March 1 at 10 am PDT, and ends Saturday Morning March 8 at 10 am PDT.
Thoughs?
By the way did you make any progress on Password changing?
Ron
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 19:18 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
Hey Ken,
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Causey
If you don't mind, please remind me of the actual schedule. I certainly have no problem with extending the voting period.
We had 2 weeks nomination, 2 weeks reminders to register, and 3 days voting.
OK.
- If the nominees are expected to participate, as a group, in any
events prior to voting (such as a questionaire, or whatever) then they should be notified of some sort of deadline for nominations prior to these events but as late as possible. Similarly I see no reason not to request nominations from the beginning and in every communication up to the point that nominations need to stop, if any.
I'm not sure what we can do since I spent a lot of time trying to solicit questions last year, then when I finally just came up with questions I thought were softballs, some of the candidates complained that I was biased in some way.
It would be nice to have some event but what? With what questions? I was thinking we would just skip this instead of trying again. What do you think?
I did say 'If'. ;)
I'm not sure any event is needed, but if the community has questions for the nominees I think it makes sense for every one of them to be asked the questions in a consistent format and have the same opportunity to respond.
I guess what I'm saying is I suggest immediately querying the community for questions that they want nominees to answer, perhaps collecting them on a wiki page. Then the elections team should have a reasonable period of time to edit those and cull them down to a reasonable selection and present them to the nominees. The original page of questions should be kept and nominees should be welcome to add any questions from that page to the questionaire, say at the end, and answer them. Similarly of course the nominee should feel free to add their own questions and answers to the form. Of course they should be encouraged to answer all of the questions in the original questionaire, but I see no reason to forbid not answering some of them.
- Obviously then there is the voting period itself which clearly must
have a hard starting and stopping point. Again I suggest that the information about this be communicated as soon as possible (so that anyone who gets email rarely has little excuse about not being warned) and as often as possible until the voting period has ended.
I agree. I would think that 7 days would eliminate most problems. We could also send out daily reminders about voting during those 7 days.
So 3 weeks nomination, 1 week campaigning, 1 week voting sounds good to me.
That would be Nomination until Feb 22, campaigning till Feb 29 (Happy Leap Year) Voting starts Saturday Morning March 1 at 10 am PDT, and ends Saturday Morning March 8 at 10 am PDT.
Thoughs?
That sounds fine to me.
By the way did you make any progress on Password changing?
Yes, and no, I'm working on it but it is going rather more slowly than I had hoped. If you have received any more requests about password resets by email, have them email me directly (either my personal email address or the box-admins mailing list). If I end up having to do any by hand again, I need those original emails so I have some confidence that it is the actual account holder requesting the reset. If you would please go ahead and have Laurance Rozier email me directly.
In fact if you send out an email regarding elections prior to the point at which I say that the automated password reset mechanism is ready, then instruct anyone who has misplaced their password to email box-admins@lists.squeakfoundation.org with a password reset request making sure to include their SqP account name in the email.
Ron
Ken
From: Ken Causey
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 19:18 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
Hey Ken,
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Causey
- If the nominees are expected to participate, as a group, in any
events prior to voting (such as a questionaire, or whatever) then they should be notified of some sort of deadline for nominations prior to these events but as late as possible. Similarly I see no reason not
to
request nominations from the beginning and in every communication up
to
the point that nominations need to stop, if any.
I'm not sure what we can do since I spent a lot of time trying to
solicit
questions last year, then when I finally just came up with questions I thought were softballs, some of the candidates complained that I was
biased
in some way.
It would be nice to have some event but what? With what questions? I
was
thinking we would just skip this instead of trying again. What do you think?
I did say 'If'. ;)
I'm not sure any event is needed, but if the community has questions for the nominees I think it makes sense for every one of them to be asked the questions in a consistent format and have the same opportunity to respond.
I guess what I'm saying is I suggest immediately querying the community for questions that they want nominees to answer, perhaps collecting them on a wiki page. Then the elections team should have a reasonable period of time to edit those and cull them down to a reasonable selection and present them to the nominees. The original page of questions should be kept and nominees should be welcome to add any questions from that page to the questionaire, say at the end, and answer them. Similarly of course the nominee should feel free to add their own questions and answers to the form. Of course they should be encouraged to answer all of the questions in the original questionaire, but I see no reason to forbid not answering some of them.
That all sounds fine, except that when I asked last time I go only a few responses. I'm all for setting up a wiki page like last year. I just don't think there will be much response. I'm watching the Democratic debate now maybe that would be a good idea. I wonder if we couldn't get some high profile members to ask questions on IRC? That would be fun.
That would be Nomination until Feb 22, campaigning till Feb 29 (Happy
Leap
Year) Voting starts Saturday Morning March 1 at 10 am PDT, and ends
Saturday
Morning March 8 at 10 am PDT.
Thoughs?
That sounds fine to me.
By the way did you make any progress on Password changing?
Yes, and no, I'm working on it but it is going rather more slowly than I had hoped. If you have received any more requests about password resets by email, have them email me directly (either my personal email address or the box-admins mailing list). If I end up having to do any by hand again, I need those original emails so I have some confidence that it is the actual account holder requesting the reset. If you would please go ahead and have Laurance Rozier email me directly.
In fact if you send out an email regarding elections prior to the point at which I say that the automated password reset mechanism is ready, then instruct anyone who has misplaced their password to email box-admins@lists.squeakfoundation.org with a password reset request making sure to include their SqP account name in the email.
Terrific that sounds good.
It would be nice if we could announce the election tomorrow. It would be good to wait for Göran to read the emails approve and announce all this.
Thanks Ken for all your work and for participating!
Ron
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 21:29 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
From: Ken Causey
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 19:18 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
Hey Ken,
-----Original Message----- From: Ken Causey
I guess what I'm saying is I suggest immediately querying the community for questions that they want nominees to answer, perhaps collecting them on a wiki page. Then the elections team should have a reasonable period of time to edit those and cull them down to a reasonable selection and present them to the nominees. The original page of questions should be kept and nominees should be welcome to add any questions from that page to the questionaire, say at the end, and answer them. Similarly of course the nominee should feel free to add their own questions and answers to the form. Of course they should be encouraged to answer all of the questions in the original questionaire, but I see no reason to forbid not answering some of them.
That all sounds fine, except that when I asked last time I go only a few responses. I'm all for setting up a wiki page like last year. I just don't think there will be much response. I'm watching the Democratic debate now maybe that would be a good idea. I wonder if we couldn't get some high profile members to ask questions on IRC? That would be fun.
I suggest going through the motions on a questionaire anyway. If the community only comes through with two questions, then those are the two questions the community would like the nominees to address, fine. The primary point is to give the community the opportunity, the result is in some sense secondary.
Regarding an IRC event. You're right, that could be fun, I've done one or two before. However, witness the current battle to find a time that 4 people (Edgar DeCleene, Matthew Fulmer, Keith Hodges, Colin Putney) are going through to find a time that they can all meet and I think you will find that any realtime event among a worldwide group is always difficult and at best short of being complete (in terms of attendance). Don't let that discourage you though, in my opinion it's the election team's job to do a reasonable minimum of work to make these sorts of things possible, really its the community's responsibility as a whole to take advantage and the election team should accept any criticism and try to accomodate it, but in the end it's just a matter of doing the best job that just one or two people (the election team) can manage in their spare time.
Yes, and no, I'm working on it but it is going rather more slowly than I had hoped. If you have received any more requests about password resets by email, have them email me directly (either my personal email address or the box-admins mailing list). If I end up having to do any by hand again, I need those original emails so I have some confidence that it is the actual account holder requesting the reset. If you would please go ahead and have Laurance Rozier email me directly.
In fact if you send out an email regarding elections prior to the point at which I say that the automated password reset mechanism is ready, then instruct anyone who has misplaced their password to email box-admins@lists.squeakfoundation.org with a password reset request making sure to include their SqP account name in the email.
Terrific that sounds good.
It would be nice if we could announce the election tomorrow. It would be good to wait for Göran to read the emails approve and announce all this.
Thanks Ken for all your work and for participating!
Sure. I'm good with what I have heard so far. If you don't mind I would like an opportunity to proofread any official email you send out, when there is time. If nothing else a quick list of the points to be covered would be good that way I can at least confirm that you are covering what I think needs to be covered. ;) In this case and in any case if you will be working on something like an email where you would like commentary/proofreading then I suggest that you just notify the list as soon as possible so that those of us like myself that would like the opportunity are aware that we may want to check email at times where we don't tend to do so normally.
Ron
Ken
From: Of Ken Causey
I suggest going through the motions on a questionaire anyway. If the community only comes through with two questions, then those are the two questions the community would like the nominees to address, fine. The primary point is to give the community the opportunity, the result is in some sense secondary.
Regarding an IRC event. You're right, that could be fun, I've done one or two before. However, witness the current battle to find a time that 4 people (Edgar DeCleene, Matthew Fulmer, Keith Hodges, Colin Putney) are going through to find a time that they can all meet and I think you will find that any realtime event among a worldwide group is always difficult and at best short of being complete (in terms of attendance). Don't let that discourage you though, in my opinion it's the election team's job to do a reasonable minimum of work to make these sorts of things possible, really its the community's responsibility as a whole to take advantage and the election team should accept any criticism and try to accomodate it, but in the end it's just a matter of doing the best job that just one or two people (the election team) can manage in their spare time.
I suppose you are right about the time problems. I guess the best way forward is to solicit questions personally to key individuals, and hope they have time to answer. So now the question is could there be complaints about who we pick to ask questions?
Sure. I'm good with what I have heard so far. If you don't mind I would like an opportunity to proofread any official email you send out, when there is time. If nothing else a quick list of the points to be covered would be good that way I can at least confirm that you are covering what I think needs to be covered. ;) In this case and in any case if you will be working on something like an email where you would like commentary/proofreading then I suggest that you just notify the list as soon as possible so that those of us like myself that would like the opportunity are aware that we may want to check email at times where we don't tend to do so normally.
That sounds like a good idea.
I heard from Göran and he said that he was available this afternoon to read over our emails. I mentioned that if he couldn't make it we could just wait till Monday instead.
Ron
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 13:52 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
From: Of Ken Causey
I suggest going through the motions on a questionaire anyway. If the community only comes through with two questions, then those are the two questions the community would like the nominees to address, fine. The primary point is to give the community the opportunity, the result is in some sense secondary.
Regarding an IRC event. You're right, that could be fun, I've done one or two before. However, witness the current battle to find a time that 4 people (Edgar DeCleene, Matthew Fulmer, Keith Hodges, Colin Putney) are going through to find a time that they can all meet and I think you will find that any realtime event among a worldwide group is always difficult and at best short of being complete (in terms of attendance). Don't let that discourage you though, in my opinion it's the election team's job to do a reasonable minimum of work to make these sorts of things possible, really its the community's responsibility as a whole to take advantage and the election team should accept any criticism and try to accomodate it, but in the end it's just a matter of doing the best job that just one or two people (the election team) can manage in their spare time.
I suppose you are right about the time problems. I guess the best way forward is to solicit questions personally to key individuals, and hope they have time to answer. So now the question is could there be complaints about who we pick to ask questions?
Hmm. I'm confused. Why are you picking people to ask questions? Actually I'm not sure if you are referring to who is 'asking a question' or who is 'answering a question'. In the first case it seems to me its open to anyone in the community. At the time you edit the questions it would not bother me if you removed any asked by someone who can't even vote (hopefully that wouldn't come up of course), but otherwise anyone should be able to ask. In the second case, every nominee should be asked to answer every question. Whether they choose to skip one or more is up to each individual nominee, but they should all have the opportunity to answer each and every question. Or perhaps am I misunderstanding?
Sure. I'm good with what I have heard so far. If you don't mind I would like an opportunity to proofread any official email you send out, when there is time. If nothing else a quick list of the points to be covered would be good that way I can at least confirm that you are covering what I think needs to be covered. ;) In this case and in any case if you will be working on something like an email where you would like commentary/proofreading then I suggest that you just notify the list as soon as possible so that those of us like myself that would like the opportunity are aware that we may want to check email at times where we don't tend to do so normally.
That sounds like a good idea.
I heard from Göran and he said that he was available this afternoon to read over our emails. I mentioned that if he couldn't make it we could just wait till Monday instead.
OK
Ron
Ken
From: Ken Causey
Hmm. I'm confused. Why are you picking people to ask questions? Actually I'm not sure if you are referring to who is 'asking a question' or who is 'answering a question'. In the first case it seems to me its open to anyone in the community. At the time you edit the questions it would not bother me if you removed any asked by someone who can't even vote (hopefully that wouldn't come up of course), but otherwise anyone should be able to ask. In the second case, every nominee should be asked to answer every question. Whether they choose to skip one or more is up to each individual nominee, but they should all have the opportunity to answer each and every question. Or perhaps am I misunderstanding?
What happened last year is that I tried to solicit questions from the community. The response was dismal. I tried to get people to discuss on squeak-dev, no response. So finally I made up the questions myself but the candidates objected to that. My thought was that if we are going to do this then we need to have questions and start the ball rolling. If we put it out to the community we will get nothing. If I make up questions there will be complaints. So I was offering as a solution choosing a number of very prominent members of the community and asking them personally to submit questions to the candidates. This is like the debate (questions asked by qualified individuals) but without the time problem (being able to organize a time on IRC for a global community). I'm ok with anyone asking questions and having all the candidates answer them, I'm just concerned that we will get no response to requests for questions.
Ron
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 17:34 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
From: Ken Causey
Hmm. I'm confused. Why are you picking people to ask questions? Actually I'm not sure if you are referring to who is 'asking a question' or who is 'answering a question'. In the first case it seems to me its open to anyone in the community. At the time you edit the questions it would not bother me if you removed any asked by someone who can't even vote (hopefully that wouldn't come up of course), but otherwise anyone should be able to ask. In the second case, every nominee should be asked to answer every question. Whether they choose to skip one or more is up to each individual nominee, but they should all have the opportunity to answer each and every question. Or perhaps am I misunderstanding?
What happened last year is that I tried to solicit questions from the community. The response was dismal. I tried to get people to discuss on squeak-dev, no response. So finally I made up the questions myself but the candidates objected to that. My thought was that if we are going to do this then we need to have questions and start the ball rolling. If we put it out to the community we will get nothing. If I make up questions there will be complaints. So I was offering as a solution choosing a number of very prominent members of the community and asking them personally to submit questions to the candidates. This is like the debate (questions asked by qualified individuals) but without the time problem (being able to organize a time on IRC for a global community). I'm ok with anyone asking questions and having all the candidates answer them, I'm just concerned that we will get no response to requests for questions.
Ron
I would really just prefer that the community at large be offered the opportunity and that it be made very clear that this is their primary opportunity to not only get the opinion of nominees but also to point out issues of concern to them, really its up to them then to choose or not choose to take advantage of the opportunity. However, if you also want to pointedly ask certain individuals for questions that would be OK also. But only doing that would be a form of bias as well, you are selecting who to ask.
Ken
On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 17:34 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
From: Ken Causey
Hmm. I'm confused. Why are you picking people to ask questions? Actually I'm not sure if you are referring to who is 'asking a question' or who is 'answering a question'. In the first case it seems to me its open to anyone in the community. At the time you edit the questions it would not bother me if you removed any asked by someone who can't even vote (hopefully that wouldn't come up of course), but otherwise anyone should be able to ask. In the second case, every nominee should be asked to answer every question. Whether they choose to skip one or more is up to each individual nominee, but they should all have the opportunity to answer each and every question. Or perhaps am I misunderstanding?
What happened last year is that I tried to solicit questions from the community. The response was dismal. I tried to get people to discuss on squeak-dev, no response. So finally I made up the questions myself but the candidates objected to that. My thought was that if we are going to do this then we need to have questions and start the ball rolling. If we put it out to the community we will get nothing. If I make up questions there will be complaints. So I was offering as a solution choosing a number of very prominent members of the community and asking them personally to submit questions to the candidates. This is like the debate (questions asked by qualified individuals) but without the time problem (being able to organize a time on IRC for a global community). I'm ok with anyone asking questions and having all the candidates answer them, I'm just concerned that we will get no response to requests for questions.
Ron
One more response to this:
In my opinion the role of the elections team is to offer a fair process to the community to elect board members. My point being the election team's responsibility is to the community, not to the nominees. Regarding the questionaire, the goal is to offer the community the opportunity, it is not to produce a questionaire with answers. The second is truly secondary in my opinion. So I don't think you should at all be worrying whether or not the result is a questionaire with a list of interesting questions. You should only worry about whether the community has had an opportunity to participate.
Ken
elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Ken Causey -
Ron Teitelbaum