Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Council members who leave office for whatever reason cannot be freely
replaced by vote of the remaining Council.  Instead the replacement is
whoever is next in line by vote.  The concept of the
_reopen_nominations slot is to designate that people below that slot
cannot be used as replacements, and instead a new election has to be
held.

And of course during the original election if not enough candidates
beat _reopen_nominations then less than a full set of Council members
are elected, and then another election is held.  This would presumably
be repeated indefinitely until enough people win one way or another.

There is no way provided for a Council member to take office without
being elected in above _reopen_nominations.

> 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?

In the last two years a grand total of 2 people ran for Trustee
positions without ending up a Trustee.  In contrast, in the same
period a total of 12 people run for Council positions without serving
on the Council in that year.  This is despite the fact that the
Trustees only had to fill 6 slots while the Council had to fill 14 in
the same period of time.

Even if the result of _reopen_nominations is that the Trustees end up
filling some slots with non-elected candidates there are still some
benefits:
1.  The appointed candidates would only serve for one year per the
bylaws, allowing for somebody with more support to replace them.
2.  The issue receives more visibility, and it makes it clear which
Trustees have a mandate.

-- 
Rich