[Elections] Filling Vacancy

Thu Sep 11 17:13:51 UTC 2008

Thanks Ron (and Goran),

I'm happy to wait for the Leadership (not comfortable with the name
either, but it's their name) to consider things before going to the
larger community.

I would like to suggest however that in the current situation it might
make more sense to do something reasonable to fill the Leadership sooner
than later and postpone the expectedly long discussion of the 'right'
thing to do in the future until afterwards.  I think it does need to be
discussed, but I think a lot of people may be dissatisfied with a two
week deadline.  I think everyone would be best served by the Election
Team/Leadership making the best decision they can for now to fill the
current vacancies, announcing it and apologizing for not having
previously taken the time to discuss it properly, and then opening the
discussion as to the right way to handle it in the future, with an
ultimate deadline of next year's election.

Of course if the SFLC bylaws already state a clear and required
mechanism then that changes things somewhat.  But it should still be
explained to the community and discussed, even if it is effectively
non-optional.

Speaking of which is there some reason such bylaws have not been made
publicly available to the community for consideration?

Ken

On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 09:58 -0400, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I spent some time talking to some other foundations to ask their opinion.  I
> got some very good advice.  I'd like to spend some time writing up something
> that we can use as a framework and then have Yoshiki run it by the board and
> our legal team to clean it up.  Then I would suggest we submit it to the
> community to get approval or to have it voted down and start over.  I think
> this may be the least painful option.
> 
> The main concepts are:
> 
> 1) The Board should be able to fill vacant seats for the interim period as
> long as a majority of the board elected by the community still exists.  If
> we loose more then 3 of the original elected board then a new election to
> replace everyone is called.  The new members will serve out the reminder and
> the next year.
> 
> 2) New members are to be approved by a majority vote of the entire board
> including vacant seats which means that in order to pick a new member you
> currently need 4 votes.  In the event that a 4 vote majority can not be
> reached the post remains vacant until the next election.
> 
> 3) The Board is not allowed to change the bylaws.  I think that this is
> already true with the Software Freedom Conservancy.  But we should have this
> written in stone.  ByLaws are only changeable by a vote from the community.
> 
> 4) The Board should be allowed to remove directors by 2/3 vote of a quorum.
> The person being asked to leave should be notified have the opportunity to
> be heard by a meeting of the board and to voice their concerns to the
> community at least 1 week prior to a vote.  The Directors can vote for
> removal, sanctions, or some other form of reprimand but once the vote is
> cast the results are final.
> 
> 5) The Board can be dissolved at any time by a majority vote of the
> community and a new election is held.
> 
> I'd like to make this more formal and get approval from the Conservancy
> before presenting it to the community. 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Ron
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: elections-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:elections-
> > bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Göran Krampe
> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:02 AM
> > To: Ron at USMedRec.com
> > Cc: elections at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: RE: [Elections] Filling Vacancy
> > 
> > Hi all!
> > 
> > Ok, found some time to glance this through, here are my reflections on the
> > matter and proposal on how to proceed:
> > 
> > > Hi Yoshiki,
> > >
> > > Thank you again for your service to our community.  I think we need to
> > do
> > > something to replace both board members.
> > 
> > Generally I agree with that, more below.
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I have not read it. I leave the task to check that to the board (I don't
> > like the word "Leadership", sorry).
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Mmmm, my time is a bit scarce right now - last night's hacking emptied my
> > "hack-during-nights-account". :)
> > 
> > So I leave it in your hands (Ron or Ken) to post to squeak-dev and get the
> > thread going - feel free to copy/pase/edit from this post, see below.
> > 
> > > I think we can simply present a timeline for deciding on our options.
> > 
> > Yes, be careful in selecting the subject line so that people notice the
> > thread - and set a timelimit to... 2 weeks? Should be enough to give us
> > enough "fodder" to make some kind of decision - if of course the decision
> > is ours to make - one could argue that it is up to the board too. Hehe,
> > well, that meta-question can be part of the thread too.
> > 
> > >  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 presume we have these options to pick from:
> > 
> > 1. Do nothing. This option needs to have a minimum limit on number of
> > board members before a whole re-election kicks in. IMHO a full re-election
> > would be logical in that case. Given our "lack" of activity this seems
> > less optimal to me.
> > 
> > 2. Fill empty seats in a whole open fashion not favoring runners up from
> > previous election result. There are pros and cons of course, it is "fair"
> > in its simplicity and it offers a bigger palette of people etc etc. The
> > con would be ... well, not sure I see a con actually - the runners up
> > would still be "obvious picks" anyway. This would be my personal choice at
> > this time I think.
> > 
> > 3. Fill empty seats focusing on runners up *first* and then openly only if
> > those "run out". I personally think there may be more problems with this
> > option than there are benefits. Let's say there is an obvious very active
> > choice in the open - and a very passive person who was runner up. Would
> > that seem fair?
> > 
> > 4. Fill empty seats only using runners up and if those run out - move to
> > option #1 above. This would be the "respect the election"-option I guess,
> > but I personally feel it is a bit restrictive. After all, we only sit 1
> > year at a time - not 4. :)
> > 
> > I can not see any more options - can you? Finally we also need to "decide"
> > if the decision we will make in say 2 weeks of time after the discussion
> > on squeak-dev is ours to make (Election team with me as leader) or if it
> > is up to the board.
> > 
> > > I don't think we should do anything until we hear from Göran.
> > 
> > Now you heard :) - feel free to fire the gun at the squeak-dev list on
> > behalf of me/us. And let the mayhem ensue.
> > 
> > > Ron Teitelbaum
> > 
> > regards, Göran
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Elections mailing list
> > Elections at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
> 
> 
-------------- 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/20080911/61765f24/attachment.pgp