| 1 |
On 2018.04.16 02:40, Matthew Thode wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 18-04-15 19:29:54, Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto |
| 4 |
> > <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > we haven't had too many candidates |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > What does that have to do with candidates not being suitable for the |
| 8 |
> > position they're trying to be elected for? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > To sum up, we're forced to vote for candidates we don't want to vote |
| 11 |
> > for because there's no way we can not vote for them, and not voting |
| 12 |
> is |
| 13 |
> > also not an option since if we don't vote twice in a row we lose our |
| 14 |
> > foundation membership. If it has to be a rigged election I'd rather |
| 15 |
> > not be forced to approve of it. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The positions in question are for a business office. AFAIK the |
| 19 |
> posisitions NEED to be filled. The only way I see this working is if |
| 20 |
> those already in those positions stay until the election completes. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> There is an out if you are not satisfied with the current Trustees. |
| 23 |
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.6._Resignation_and_Removal_of_Trustees |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> If you want to see change I welcome you to stand up at nomination |
| 26 |
> time. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> -- |
| 29 |
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
See also Section 5.7. Vacancies. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Suppose we have a _reopen_nominations (even if its legal) that tops the poll. |
| 35 |
Nobody is elected. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
The retiring trustees resign with immediate effect, leaving two, possibly |
| 38 |
three trustees to appoint further trustees under Section 5.7 of the bylaws. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Are they going to approach the volunteers that were beaten by |
| 41 |
_reopen_nominations, who clearly don't have the support of the membership |
| 42 |
or approach other members who did not want to volunteer in the first place? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
The concept of _reopen_nominations is silly, even for council. If someone |
| 45 |
wants to stand for election, they really don't need to wait for an election |
| 46 |
rerun. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
If you want to take the above thought experiment a bit further, after the |
| 49 |
first year of trying to elect trustees and failing the remaining trustees |
| 50 |
retire by rotation. They can be excluded too and we have a |
| 51 |
completely empty board ... now what? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
In theory, the officers continue to run the foundation ... in practice, |
| 54 |
the trustees double as officers, so that might not happen. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
It boils down to if you don't like the way the candidates list is shaping up |
| 57 |
add more candidates during the nomination period. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
Regards, |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Roy Bamford |
| 63 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 64 |
elections |
| 65 |
gentoo-ops |
| 66 |
forum-mods |
Archives