On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:40, Remco Rijnders <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 08:34:14AM +0100, Maarten wrote in >> Since only association members vote for board, and i think i see several >> team leaders already agreeing and noone disagreeing... i think this would >> qualify as being acclamated... >> >> i guess if this sort of procedure is being followed, all that is needed is a >> timelimit for someone to disagree and then the email of stating if the new >> members are accepted... > > I think what I tried to say... it is good to have the policies and > procedures clear up front and to stick to them, even when they might seem > overly bureaucratic to us now. In the future, when we might face issues, it > is good to have established procedures we can point to instead of having > people claim "but you did x back then".
+1 We have a constitution of rules for the association. We may perfectly update these to properly handle such a case, but before that, it would reinforce these if we stick to them. It's not about being overly bureaucratic, but indeed, I find there's an issue here: - do they get a seat at the board, because there's room to fill or because they are elected into it? that's pretty different; - if the former reason is true, how could the board prevent an unwanted candidate to join? (I have nothing against the candidates here, it's a question about our constitution design). Now, on the technical/setup bit: if managing epoll is too complex/cumbersome, shall we consider alternative/existing platforms for that? or advertise/sponsor further development so it's a matter of "new poll" > "name" > "who can vote" > "proposals" > "deadline" > "start" clicks to set it up? Romain
