On 18.02.2010, at 00:51, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
> 
> El jue, 18-02-2010 a las 00:14 +0100, Göran Krampe escribió:
>> Dear Squeakers,
>> 
>> Approximately one year has passed and it is hight time for us to kick 
>> another Squeak Oversight Board Election into gear!
> 
> Honest question, in the sight of the known discussions about the current
> board.

Honest answer: you and a few others attribute way too much power to the board. We're just a bunch of guys who stepped up to serve the community. That's all. 

> 1. Will some kind of Terms of Reference will be created to
> limit/establish/clear the responsibilities/powers/obligations of the new
> board?

That's up to the new board. The last board asked the community, the majority response was "thanks, you guys are doing fine".

> 2. Will some kind of gentleman agreement will be proposed for this new
> board (and of course subsequent ones) that avoids that the new board
> throws the previous board work and objectives for their new ones (and by
> implication, upsetting people that worked for the previous objectives).

I'd expect the new board to honor previous decisions, unless there are very good reasons not to.  In my personal opinion, no decision should ever be final, but it should only be re-discussed if there are new facts.

> 3. What will avoid that each new board makes from squeak its own
> playground that will end with the board term.

You. As in, the people voting for the board. In previous years there were always a few people re-elected, and a few new ones came in.

> In the long term this will kill the community, as we have seen this year.

Judging by the amount of contributions, the community appears to be very much alive this year.

What we have endured though is the hijacking of this list by a very small but very vocal minority. I surely hope the election will bring more peace to the list.

> 4. What about the concerns of people about the members with voting
> power. What prevents that in some election:
> 	4.1 only or mostly voters are the ones happy with the current board,
> perpetuating the same members of the current board in the new board

Nothing prevents that. However, looking at previous election results there were always some votes against the current board members (myself included), which seems healthy.

> 	4.2 everyone votes, even the ones that haven't interest (economical,
> financial, educative, code donated or contributed) or a real, earned,
> right to vote

I think that is prevented by the low gain to be had from rigging the election. See above.

However, I'd propose a kind of "membership" model where only actual contributors would be able to vote (where contributions are not just code but time and efforts spent to help Squeak).  In fact I did propose this for these elections but it was deemed to late to change the process now. I'd expect the next board to ask the community about this.

> 5. What about the "constitution" of Squeak, so many of this problems can
> be fully avoided. 

It would be good to write the election rules down, and in fact we will have to because we need to put it in the contract with the SFC. Right now we are putting in a placeholder that describes how elections have been held, but the next board would amend these.

Oh, and consider my hat in the ring for re-election :)

- Bert -