[gentoo-dev] Re: 2009 Council Elections

[Duncan]

Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> posted
20090628221421.1c9f82c7@××××××××××××××.us, excerpted below, on  Sun, 28
Jun 2009 22:14:21 +0000:

>> Its my opinion that the concept of proxies in council meetings is
>> fatally flawed.
>>
>> 1. The brief (if any) that the proxy is given by the council member
>> being proxied is never made public.
>>
> This is a problem.  Any time a council member requires a proxy, that
> should be published immediately (including who the proxy is).  Not
> possible for things coming up at the last minute, of course.

Extending that, what about having, at least for a first proxy level, a 
"designated proxy"?  Each council member would choose a proxy at the 
beginning of their term, or even as a running mate if taken that far.  
Designated proxies would then be effectively council members with 
observer status -- no voting power -- unless their designated member was 
absent.

Following the logic, designated proxies /could/ (IOW, I'm not sure it is 
practical to take it this far) be held to the same general council 
standards, slacker marks for non-attendance, etc, and in otherwise 
comment-closed sessions would have voice -- they just wouldn't have the 
vote unless their designated voting council member was absent.  

If the proxy was chosen at the beginning of the term (not as a running 
mate), the first order of business of the first meeting of a new council 
would be approving the table of proxies.  Either way, it would basically 
eliminate the question of whether a council member or designated proxy 
must be a dev or not, because either they'd have been voted in with that 
taken into account, or the council would have approved the designated 
proxies at the first meeting.  (I'd suggest, for fairness and efficiency, 
the first approval vote be held on the entire table of proxies, not 
individually.  If that vote fails, then go the individual route.  I'm not 
sure about what to do if a voting member doesn't make the first meeting; 
perhaps give the presumed proxy the vote for that first meeting, even if 
it means he's voting on approving himself?)

Now, practically speaking, if this is instituted, since we'd be 
effectively doubling the number of people on council (just not the number 
of votes), it may be useful to reduce the number of voting members a 
bit.  It would in fact be possible to have it an even number, as well, in 
which case, if there was a tie, the designated proxies could vote as 
well, with their combined votes taken as a single tie override.  (If the 
number of voting members were even, however, so would be the number of 
proxies, thus leading to the possibility of a tie vote there as well.  
I'd suggest that a wise policy in that case would be that the matter is 
voted down, as there's simply not enough consensus on the matter yet.  If 
desired, the issue could be brought up again in say... six months, thus 
giving each council two chances at a vote, without locking it up on the 
same issue for months at a time.  Alternatively, the first runner(s)-up 
could be the tie-breaker, and they'd need observer status as well, in 
ordered to be in the loop enough to cast that vote.)

FWIW, it's seven council members now.  Perhaps five would work, yielding 
ten, with the designated proxies as observers.  Even four, using the tie 
breaking rules above, making it 8 including designated proxies.  I'd hate 
to see it go below four as that gets too easy for abuse, but 4-5 should 
work.

Now if the running mate idea was implemented, there'd be another option 
as well.  Gentoo could continue the policy of runner-up taking the 
vacancy if one opens (and the runner-up isn't reopen_nominations), or it 
could switch to the designated proxy aka running mate taking the 
position.  Of course, in the latter case, the running mate would now need 
to select a proxy, which would then be handled using the approval process 
mentioned above.  (In the former case, the runner-up would have already 
had a running mate.)

If the running mates idea is chosen, a rule could be instituted that 
there's no person appearing at both voting member and running mate (on 
another ticket), or it could be that a first person on one ticket could 
be the running mate on another, but a person could only appear once in 
each spot.  (The latter would presumably end up with pair-tickets, where 
the top person switches off, tho that wouldn't be a given.  In the case 
of pair-tickets, choosing the one would automatically eliminate the other 
from further consideration, thereby eliminating the case of two voting 
council members being each others designated proxy, as well.

All this would eliminate the question of whether proxies are up to speed 
on a given issue, or the briefing they had been given, etc, at least for 
the first level of proxy, which would now be observer members unless 
their primary was absent, with the usual expectation and obligation of 
council members to follow the issues brought before the council.  Of 
course, it would increase the chance of both primary voting member and 
designated proxy being unavailable, but that could be handled with 
basically the system we have today, with the additional minimal 
requirement that non-designated proxies be Gentoo developers in good 
standing, as they wouldn't have gone thru the vote or approval process.

As a new council term is just now starting, obviously the running mate 
idea couldn't be used this year.  However, council members could still 
choose a designated proxy for the year, thus starting the process.  If 
all council members do so and the council chooses to vote on the table of 
proxies, then there should be no restriction on who is chosen, since 
they'll be voted on anyway.  If the council as a whole does not choose to 
go the designated proxy route this year, maintaining the status quo, then 
I'd say it's unfair to choose a non-dev as a proxy, because there has 
been no vote approving it.  (That would seem to be, after all, the reason 
the council members as devs restriction wasn't in GLEP 39, because they'd 
have been voted in, and presumably, if the voters, who /are/ devs, voted 
in a non-dev, they'd know what they were doing.  Since under the current 
system there's no such approval required for proxies, I'd say it's only 
fair that they be required to be devs, thus minimizing any controversy 
over their status, and votes they may take.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman