Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Gentoo Foundation Trustees 202106 Election Results

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 07:07 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 05:19:15PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > this is actually the first time anybody has even had the chance to
> > vote for the reopen option.
> Why do you think this is the first time somebody had an option to use
> the reopen option?
>
> The last 3 Trustees elections had _reopen_nominations as an option.
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-201807/ballot-trustees-201807
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-201906/ballot-trustees-201906
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/elections.git/tree/completed/trustees-202006/ballot-trustees-202006
>
> Council has used it since the council2008b election.
>
> > IMO the simplest option is to just leave alicef in her position at
> > least in the interim, inquire via the lists if anybody else wants to
> > run, and then if there are other candidates hold another election.  If
> > nobody else has an interest the Trustees could just appoint alicef (or
> > anybody else) to the slot.
> This is similar to my suggestion: if nobody else is nominated, alicef
> gets the seat anyway.
>
> > Honestly, this situation is making me question the point of even
> > having the reopen option.  If we were going to just operate with an
> > unoccupied chair that might be one thing, but it seems like the time
> > for others to step up to run is during the initial election.  Having
> > the voters say we don't like the options doesn't really help, and it
> > just creates a somewhat adversarial situation.  I'm not sure that
> > operating with less than a full set of board members is good idea -
> > maybe if we had a dozen of them it wouldn't be a big deal to have
> > empty seats, but with only 5 the org really opens itself up to serious
> > problems if it has one or more positions vacant, like 1-2 people being
> > able to take unilateral action, bus factor, and so on.
> The reopen option makes a lot of sense if there are many nominees, and
> elected representatives potentially retire between elections: the next
> representative down the list, as long as they are above the reopen option
> are eligible to become elected representatives.
>
> Maybe adjust the voting to say:
> If there are strictly more candidates than open seats, then the reopen
> option should be present?
>

Having the option is beneficial even if it's unlikely that somebody else
will actually accept the nomination in the second phase.  It indicates
that the candidate has no support from the community.  Not saying that
the candidate will actually care about that...


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny