On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> wrote: > --On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:36:35 PM -0500 Andrew Deason > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:03:06 -0400 >> Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I'm fine with waiting on the voting to be resolved. To make things >>> smoother in the coming years, would it be wise to change the voting >>> procedure to only require two of the three vote takers to decide the >>> outcome? >> >> Assuming I'm remembering the charter doc correctly, the vote takers in >> future elections are the existing chairs (unless one of them is running >> for election). The process is different this time because we don't have >> any existing chairs yet. >> >> So in the future, we'll most likely only have one or two vote-takers. > > Yes; that's my understanding as well. This actually makes me a little > nervous; vote-taking is one of the few things that has to be done at least > partially in secret, which means it's very hard to verify if there's only > one vote-taker. I'd prefer to see two or three vote-takers in every > election, in which case I'd support Jason's suggestion. >
Agreed. We can easily fall into the single vote-taker situation when, for example, an the outgoing incumbent is nominated for re-election, or a chair vacates their seat during the election. While I think I can trust everyone involved, the mere appearance of impropriety could put a cloud over the standards process. A two-out-of-three requirement seems like a good balance of redundancy and verification. Regarding vote-taker selection, Simon's current text reads: In normal operation, the vote-takers are the current standardisation group chairs. In the event that no chair is available to act as a vote-taker, then the registrars will perform the vote-taking role. If a vote-taker wishes to stand in an election, they must recuse themselves from the vote-taking role. Vote-takers who are also eligible voters may vote in the same manner as any other voter. I'll propose the following: In normal operation, there will be three vote-takers. By default, both standardisation group chairs and one AFS assigned numbers registrar--to be chosen at the discretion of the registrars--shall serve as vote-takers. If anyone serving as a vote-taker is nominated and seconded for election, then they must either recuse themselves from the vote-taking process, or reject the nomination. Whenever vote-taking vacancies occur, the order of succession shall be: eligible registrars, followed by nomination of any eligible person by the remaining vote-taker(s). Vote-takers who are also eligible voters may vote in the same manner as any other voter. I'm not entirely happy with the above: e.g. if multiple vote-takers are nominated and seconded quasi-simultaneously, we can end up in a position where we have one (or even zero) vote-takers; should a vote-taker be nominated, it doesn't stipulate how long they have to reach a decision; etc. I guess the key question is: how many corner cases should the text cover? Thoughts? -Tom _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
