1 |
On 18/04/18 06:18, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, everyone. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Here's an imperfect proposal that aims to make everyone (un)happy |
5 |
> by combining the different requirements into a consistent system |
6 |
> for Trustee elections: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> 1. Elections can have up to 2 nomination+voting rounds. If the first |
9 |
> round does not fill all the seats, a second (shorter) round is run. |
10 |
> If the second round does not fill all the remaining seats, Trustees |
11 |
> appoint the seats as they do now. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> 2. The elections start early to account for the possibility |
14 |
> of the additional second round. If elections finish on the first round, |
15 |
> the new Trustees wait for the start of their term. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> 3. Both rounds include additional options -- '_reopen_nominations' |
18 |
> for the first round, and '_appoint_by_trustees' for the second. Only |
19 |
> candidates that get voted above those options are immediately accepted |
20 |
> into the seats. The remaining candidates can still be (s)elected |
21 |
> in the next step. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> 4. Voting is held when there's at least one nominee. If there are |
24 |
> no nominees in the round, the voting phase is skipped and the next step |
25 |
> is run immediately. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> 5. The recording date is to be determined by Trustees, independently, |
28 |
> but will occur no later than 2 months before the AGM (requested |
29 |
> by robbat2). |
30 |
> |
31 |
> The idea is that the proposal includes all of it: an explicit ability |
32 |
> to vote against a nominee, second round to give people additional chance |
33 |
> to accept nominations if the first round does not bring satisfying |
34 |
> candidates, and fixed timeline + the ability of Trustees to fill slots |
35 |
> in order to make sure that the Board is complete for its term. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> Determining the exact timeline I'm leaving up to the Trustees. |
38 |
> |
39 |
Sounds like quite a workable proposal to me. |