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

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 4:32 PM Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) <klondike@g.o> wrote:
>
> Based on that here is some action items:
> * The agenda of the AGM should be updated to reflect section 5.4 (elect number of trustees).

IMO it is unnecessary to explicitly affirm the same number annually,
but I suppose it can be done.  I think the intent of that bylaw was to
state that the time to change the number of slots is at the AGM, which
generally makes sense (though this provision could be amended at any
time).

> * If you really do want or not want alicef on the foundation you should attend the AGM and vote on that item to have 5 (or more) or 4 (or less) trustees. This is how the tie should be decided in this particular case given the bylaws.

The trustees should be attending the AGM anyway, and nobody else gets
to vote there.  I just wanted to clarify that because the wording of
your statement might be taken to imply that if people show up to the
AGM they get some sort of voting rights.  Those voting rights were
already exercised in the election which just concluded.  The Trustees
could put items up for a vote, but my reading of the bylaws suggests
that they couldn't do this unless 1/3rd of all members are present to
constitute a quorum.

If your intent is to put the number of trustees up for a vote every
year by all the members, it would make a lot more sense to do it in an
election process (in a similar manner to how we elect the trustees
themselves).  Otherwise anybody who couldn't attend the AGM online
wouldn't be able to participate, which is probably going to
systematically disadvantage people in certain timezones.

IMO giving everybody the option to change the number of trustees every
year seems unnecessary, but if we wanted to have some sort of
two-stage election process where we first vote for the number of slots
and then vote for those occupying them, I guess it is possible.
Really though it seems easier to just elect trustees who will support
the number of slots desired by the members.

I get that this is a somewhat sensitive topic due to the nature of
elections and the recent outcome, but this obviously wasn't really
something that was thought through, and this is actually the first
time anybody has even had the chance to vote for the reopen option.

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.

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.


--
Rich