[Elections] Filling Vacancy

[Ken Causey]

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.html

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
> > 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/attachments/20080910/9d0293f9/attachment.pgp