Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Michał Górny]

W dniu pon, 16.04.2018 o godzinie 10∶32 +0100, użytkownik Roy Bamford
napisał:
> On 2018.04.16 02:40, Matthew Thode wrote:
> > On 18-04-15 19:29:54, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
> > > <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote:
> > > > we haven't had too many candidates
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with candidates not being suitable for the
> > > position they're trying to be elected for?
> > >
> > > To sum up, we're forced to vote for candidates we don't want to vote
> > > for because there's no way we can not vote for them, and not voting
> >
> > is
> > > also not an option since if we don't vote twice in a row we lose our
> > > foundation membership. If it has to be a rigged election I'd rather
> > > not be forced to approve of it.
> > >
> >
> > The positions in question are for a business office.  AFAIK the
> > posisitions NEED to be filled.  The only way I see this working is if
> > those already in those positions stay until the election completes.
> >
> > There is an out if you are not satisfied with the current Trustees.
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.6._Resignation_and_Removal_of_Trustees
> >
> > If you want to see change I welcome you to stand up at nomination
> > time.
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
> >
>
> See also   Section 5.7. Vacancies.
>
> Suppose we have a  _reopen_nominations (even if its legal) that tops the poll.
> Nobody is elected.
>
> The retiring trustees resign with immediate effect, leaving two, possibly
> three trustees to appoint further trustees under Section 5.7 of the bylaws.
>
> Are they going to approach the volunteers that were beaten by
> _reopen_nominations, who clearly don't have the support of the membership
> or approach other members who did not want to volunteer in the first place?
>
> The concept of _reopen_nominations is silly, even for council. If someone
> wants to stand for election, they really don't need to wait for an election
> rerun.

> If you want to take the above thought experiment a bit further, after the
> first year of trying to elect trustees and failing the remaining trustees
> retire by rotation. They can be excluded too and we have a
> completely empty board ... now what?
>
> In theory, the officers continue to run the foundation ... in practice,
> the trustees double as officers, so that might not happen.
>
> It boils down to if you don't like the way the candidates list is shaping up
> add more candidates during the nomination period.

You are missing a crucial point here.  _reopen_nominations given a clear
sign that more nominees are needed, and gives additional time for them
to consider.

In other words, let's say that N candidates are nominated.  Before
voting starts, M of N candidates accept those nominations.  In fact,
some of the nominees may not reply at all or wait till last minute
to decide.  So you don't really have a clear image of the candidate list
until it is closed.  And then, there's nothing you can do except for
accepting that in the end, 'bad' Trustees happen.

With _reopen_nominations (even if allowed only once), you get a clear
sign that the nominee list is bad.  People get a chance to reconsider. 
Even if the 'bad' Trustees still get elected in the end, there is
a clear signal that there is a problem.

All that said, if getting a full board of Trustees is such a problem for
such a long time, maybe it'd be a better idea to just reduce the number
of Trustees.  But that's another topic.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny