Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o, trustees@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting.
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:50:48
Message-Id: 1208458241.408.26.camel@liasis.inforead.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-nfp] Points to Ponder for Sundays Meeting. by Roy Bamford
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 19:15 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Team, > > 1. We are required to advise Foundation members of meetings, in advance > and it seems, written notice is required. Its my view that an opt in > mailing list like gentoo-nfp is not adequate. Many members don't > subscribe and its also used for public debate, which many members are > not interested in. > I don't think snail mail is in keeping with our image either. > > It follows that we need something like gentoo-foundation-announce which > members are automaticly subscribed to or we use a list of members email > addresses to circulate notices. The difference is one of implementation > detail. >
I like the idea of gentoo-foundation-announce@. The very fact that I am going to get some number of bounces from gentoo-nfp for nonexistent addresses shows that gentoo-nfp (as it stands) is not adequate.
> We probably need to agree our bylaws before we can implement such a > list, as the bylaws define the qualifications for membership. > > 2. IRC voting and Proxies. > I'm not sure we will ever use IRC for a vote. It could be managed by > voicing the members on the list in 1) and setting the channel +m. Votes > are then cast, since only members can speak in the channel. > > The voicing will also prove that voting nicks are identified. >
IRC for voting is impractical for reasons you articulate.
> If we allow proxies, it gets more complex. We need to voice the proxies > and when we count votes, ensure that the member and proxy cast only a > single vote. > > Its further complicated by a world wide membership. The law says that > to be quorate and make decisions a members meeting needs >10% of the > members entitled to vote on an issue (at the first attempt anyway). A > short voting period on IRC would exclude the half our members who > would be in bed. In reality, we would struggle to make the 10%. There > were less than 40 attendees for our first meeting, when interest in the > Foundation was at its height. > > I'm coming round to the opinion that any issues needing to be put to a > vote of members will be voted on in the normal Gentoo way over a period > of days, if not weeks. If that's so, we need some officers to run > votes. >
I agree. Then, as I think I suggested previously, the formal vote can be the tellers' report. This is really equivalent to having everyone vote by proxy to the tellers, and the proxy vote is the normal Gentoo vote. Depending on how long it takes to extract a result from the raw Gentoo votes, I suppose we could keep the voting period open for 5 minutes into the meeting or some such. Note that members who are not developers already vote "by proxy" --- send a signed ballot to a teller. Another question about voting (and one for the bylaws) is how we extract winners. Currently, Gentoo overall uses an iterative Condorcet process until the required number of winners is chosen. Since Condorcet voting chooses only one winner, you have to eliminate the winner from the slate of candidates and run it again over and over until you have the correct number of winners. In "real life" (as in countries) people generally don't do that; instead, they use a method which can choose the required number of winners all at once. The results can be different (e.g., different methods chose different Councils last year --- I know, I tried it.) {{{ I am not necessarily advocating change; what we do works well enough. I am mentioning possibilities. And by the way, once you have many candidates and possibly many winners, NO method is perfect --- e.g., a rank-the-candidates procedure can give completely different results from a choose-the-ones-you-want rule. See Donald G Saari generally (most recently, Notices of the AMS, v55 #4 (April, 2008) pp 448--455 & accompanying references. }}}
> I'm just trying to air my views in advance of the Sunday meeting in the > hope it will make the meeting slicker. > > Thoughts and other options please. > > - -- > Regards, > > Roy Bamford > (NeddySeagoon) a member of > gentoo-ops > forum-mods > treecleaners > trustees > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkgHk84ACgkQTE4/y7nJvaslpACeIPl+nPMN6PR17/+x8cTgJZK7 > BKUAoM50PAhkuK4SfPZawk71K1R9Styb > =Uhcf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Adding to the complexity, Regards, Ferris -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature