This looks good. I'm not sure if it needs formalizing but in the past 
elections we used to have an option like "none of the below" which I 
think was helpful as a minimal bar to pass for a seat on the board. I 
don't know if it's necessary but you could consider adding it to the 
proposal (unless that precludes us from choosing other forms of voting, 
hmm ...)

Cheers,
   - Andreas

On 5/15/2012 18:00, Colin Putney wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> One of the things we promised to do when we joined the Software Freedom
> Conservancy was to formalize our election process. Despite our tradition
> of leaving these things until the last minute, we (the newly-elected
> Board) figured we'd sort this out well in advance of the next election,
> so we can hold it on time.
>
> In practice, the election doesn't have to be all that formal, we just
> need to document the process. After a bit of discussion in our last
> meeting, this is the proposal that we came up with. We'd like to submit
> this to the community for review before sending it on to the SFC:
>
> 1. The Squeak Oversight Board has 7 seats.
>
> 2. The members of the board are elected annually to a 1-year term.
>
> 3. The election will be held during the first two weeks of March each year.
>
> 4. The election team will keep a publicly-available list of community
> members. Anyone on the list may run for a Board seat and vote in the
> election. (This could be modelled after the list used by Sugar
> Labs:http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/Members).
>
> 5. Everyone who voted in the most recent election is automatically
> eligible to be added to the list.
>
> 6. Anyone can register as a member of the community by contacting the
> election team. Applicants should have made some sort of contribution to
> the community - for example, contributed code, reported a bug, written
> documentation or answered a question on a mailing list.
>
> We figure the bar for becoming a registered member of the community
> should be pretty low, so just about any contribution would be considered
> acceptable.
>
> Questions, comments, concerns?
>
> Colin Putney,
> on behalf of the Squeak Oversight Board
>
>
>