| 1 |
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:48 AM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2018.04.16 13:39, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Even if the result of _reopen_nominations is that the Trustees end up |
| 5 |
>> filling some slots with non-elected candidates there are still some |
| 6 |
>> benefits: |
| 7 |
>> 1. The appointed candidates would only serve for one year per the |
| 8 |
>> bylaws, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> True. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> allowing for somebody with more support to replace them. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Perhaps. If these 'somebodies' were interested. They would already |
| 15 |
> be standing. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Not necessarily. They might not be involved yet, or they might simply |
| 18 |
have other obligations that are no longer an issue a year later. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> 2. The issue receives more visibility, and it makes it clear which |
| 22 |
>> Trustees have a mandate. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> That's if the 'rejected' candidates are will accept an appointment |
| 25 |
> after being rejected. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The Trustees are not limited to only appointing candidates who stood |
| 28 |
for election. They could also reduce seats to obtain a new quorum if |
| 29 |
that is even necessary. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> As for visibility, its a perennial problem. Look at the years when |
| 32 |
> no vote is held and nominees are elected unopposed. |
| 33 |
> That illustrates both the problem and lack of interest in the posts. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I certainly agree that this is an issue, and it still causes problems |
| 37 |
even if all the posts are filled with warm bodies. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> _reopen_nominations will not magically make more candidates |
| 40 |
> come forward and may have the undesired side effect of |
| 41 |
> making things worse, not better. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
The problems are there all the same. All this would do is make them |
| 44 |
more visible. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I get the issue here. We have people volunteering for a job that very |
| 47 |
few people want, and in some sense this lets the membership give them |
| 48 |
a vote of no-confidence before they even start their jobs. In that |
| 49 |
sense it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is easier to |
| 50 |
criticize than to step up and do things. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
However, giving a false sense of approval also has consequences. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
IMO a more sustainable solution would be one that either makes the |
| 55 |
Trustee post more appealing to volunteers we all trust to do the job, |
| 56 |
or which eliminates the need for the post entirely. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
My message all along has been that the frustrations with the |
| 59 |
individuals manning the Trustee/Officer positions are more a result of |
| 60 |
deficiencies in metastructure than on the individuals themselves. So, |
| 61 |
personally given the choice I'd rather see the effort go into fixing |
| 62 |
the metastructure. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
That said, we shouldn't be complacent in assuming that just because |
| 65 |
people win elections that everybody is happy with the status quo. I |
| 66 |
think it was antarus who pointed out that even though there is more |
| 67 |
competition for Council seats some of the same issues may apply there |
| 68 |
as well, and I think that is fair. I do think devs get more of a |
| 69 |
choice with Council, but that doesn't make it easy to tie that to how |
| 70 |
they feel about specific issues. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
-- |
| 73 |
Rich |
Archives