[Elections] I am really worried...

[goran at krampe.se]

Hi!

Ok, cc'd the list. Whatever.

"Peter Crowther" <Peter at ozzard.org> wrote:
> [Directed to elections and Goran privately.  Goran, please feel free to
> reply privately; I reserve the prerogative to forward any response or
> portions of it to the list if I feel it would benefit the process]
> 
> > From: [...] goran at krampe.se
> > And please, please don't start *arguing* with me -
> > because that would just make things even worse.
> 
> Punch us and then put your glasses on and say we can't punch back?
> Goran, that's simply cowardly - and if you claim it's a prerogative of
> being the boss, I'll point to this as exactly the kind of abuse of
> position that I'm concerned about.

No, you can punch back, I just find it pretty useless.
No, I have no prerogatives and have never claimed so, so don't accuse me
of it. I used the word "please" twice. Stop accusing me of "abusing
power" when I in fact have been working hard for this community for
several years without any pay or other perks whatsoever. Just stop it.

> > This team is not getting disolved after the election
> 
> How do you know?  That is up to a subsequent administration, not this
> one - and definitely not you, as you're stepping down.

No, the team is not getting disolved as in "I am not aware of any such
plans and it makes no sense to dissolve it". Of course I can't *promise*
anything, but my point was of course that there will be plenty of time
afterwards too.

> > Get a simple voting system in place ASAP
> > and make it transparent.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> > I agree with the "worries" about accusations
> > later on about how legitimate the election was - but come on, 
> > keep it on a practical level here.
> 
> The coup was perceived as illegitimate by a proportion of the Squeak
> community, the merger with SqF was murky at best.  Are you *surprised*
> the people who care enough to subscribe to the list have worries about
> the perceived legitimacy of the election?

No, I am not surprised about the worries (and I said exactly that), I
just think you are going over board.

> > Personally I would actually prefer to just
> > hack up a system that accepts votes from all subscribers to squeak-dev
> > and add a confirmation email mechanism to ensure one vote per person.
> 
> Thank you for your input.  Speaking personally, I would note that it
> could have been sent in a less antagonistic manner; you probably haven't
> encouraged the team to consider your view dispassionately.

Yes, it was a smoking post, but intentionally so because I am
disappointed and annoyed. And look at all the activity now, good. I can
live with that if it in some way got you moving.

> > 3. You have so far only done one thing: discussing a voting system.
> 
> You should possibly read rather than skim before coming in with all guns
> blazing.  I believe the candidate selection mechanism - as opposed to
> the voter selection or the voting mechanisms - is so uncontroversial as
> to have gone through on the nod in the middle of some other messages.

No, I wasn't talking about the *discussion* on candidate selection, I
was talking about actually *finding them* instead of talking, talking.
And I still wonder if you managed to nail the first team task, not that
it matters much now given the upcoming total election.

> > you have done nothing on the most
> > important task of finding candidates and building an awareness of what
> > is coming on squeak-dev. If we don't have candidates it 
> > doesn't *matter* what voting system we have!
> 
> Agree entirely.  The team's communication on squeak-dev has been
> shocking; it needs someone to act as that.  I'd be happy to act as a
> communicator, but would need to be on the team first.
> 
> > 4. You are actually IMHO missing the absolutely most 
> > important risk. And
> > no, it isn't fraud - it is the lack of participation.
> 
> I suspect the percentage participation will be higher than in the
> original coup.

And I am sick tired of hearing about the "coup". We did what needed to
be done and we wouldn't be here unless *someone* actually *did*
something. Now it is your turn to actually *do* something. 

And as a sidenote - the appreciation and encouragement we got totally
overweighed the negative, but you know that too.

> > And
> > if the voting system for example only allows voting on one 
> > candidate for
> > the board - then hey, it would make it even worse.
> 
> Again: read the mails.  I'm not aware of a single system that has been
> proposed here that is limited to a single candidate.  Why raise a
> spectre that doesn't exist?

I was just trying to make you understand that if you even get 100 people
voting it would be a thundering success. My bet is below 50, but we will
see.

> > PS. Why haven't you tried making this team larger?
> 
> The team process encourages consensus.  Read the archives.  Think about
> the points of view that have been expressed.  Do you honestly believe
> that it would have been easier to reach consensus with more people
> on-list?  'cos I don't.
> 
> 		- Peter

The only thing I note is that I feel it is too small. Being so worried
about the perceived legitimacy sure doesn't IMHO reflect on how the team
itself works. But that is just my thought, feel free to ignore me.

Which of course goes for everything in this email.

regards, Göran