| 1 |
Hi, everyone. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Here's an imperfect proposal that aims to make everyone (un)happy |
| 4 |
by combining the different requirements into a consistent system |
| 5 |
for Trustee elections: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
1. Elections can have up to 2 nomination+voting rounds. If the first |
| 8 |
round does not fill all the seats, a second (shorter) round is run. |
| 9 |
If the second round does not fill all the remaining seats, Trustees |
| 10 |
appoint the seats as they do now. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
2. The elections start early to account for the possibility |
| 13 |
of the additional second round. If elections finish on the first round, |
| 14 |
the new Trustees wait for the start of their term. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
3. Both rounds include additional options -- '_reopen_nominations' |
| 17 |
for the first round, and '_appoint_by_trustees' for the second. Only |
| 18 |
candidates that get voted above those options are immediately accepted |
| 19 |
into the seats. The remaining candidates can still be (s)elected |
| 20 |
in the next step. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
4. Voting is held when there's at least one nominee. If there are |
| 23 |
no nominees in the round, the voting phase is skipped and the next step |
| 24 |
is run immediately. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
5. The recording date is to be determined by Trustees, independently, |
| 27 |
but will occur no later than 2 months before the AGM (requested |
| 28 |
by robbat2). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The idea is that the proposal includes all of it: an explicit ability |
| 31 |
to vote against a nominee, second round to give people additional chance |
| 32 |
to accept nominations if the first round does not bring satisfying |
| 33 |
candidates, and fixed timeline + the ability of Trustees to fill slots |
| 34 |
in order to make sure that the Board is complete for its term. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Determining the exact timeline I'm leaving up to the Trustees. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
Archives