| 1 |
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 14:00 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Sun, 2021-08-22 at 20:11 -0700, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > Due to the tie in the first election we have chosen to seat |
| 6 |
> > > robbat2 |
| 7 |
> > > and antarus and hold another election for the 3rd seat. alicef and |
| 8 |
> > > reopen_nominations tied in the last election. To resolve the tie |
| 9 |
> > > we |
| 10 |
> > > will hold a second election (with nomination period.) If alicef is |
| 11 |
> > > the |
| 12 |
> > > only person nominated; we are likely to forgo voting in the second |
| 13 |
> > > election and simply seat her (to conserve time.) The board does |
| 14 |
> > > not |
| 15 |
> > > want to have a board of 4 people[0]. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> > I'm pretty sure we've originally agreed that reopen_nominations is |
| 18 |
> > present only during the first election, and that we will hold at |
| 19 |
> > most |
| 20 |
> > two elections (and both were supposed to take place before the AGM). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> What would be the rationale for having different rules in the second |
| 23 |
> election? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> For reference, the procedure for Council elections is this [1]: |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place |
| 28 |
> or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations' |
| 29 |
> will be the current council. A second period of nominations will |
| 30 |
> be opened for the remaining council seats. No third period of |
| 31 |
> nominations will be opened in the event '_repoen_nominations' |
| 32 |
> ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the council. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Honestly, this seems unclear to me. Does that mean that Council will |
| 35 |
have less members than 7? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
IIRC the original concern raised at the time was that we didn't want to |
| 38 |
leave seats empty. Since Trustees can fill the vacancies with their own |
| 39 |
choices, it made no sense to reject candidates in the second election, |
| 40 |
and we wanted a fixed number of elections to ensure we can fit them into |
| 41 |
fixed AGM date. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
In other words, I think it was mostly a compromise. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Best regards, |
| 47 |
Michał Górny |
Archives