On Tue, May 27, 2025, 2:46 PM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2025, at 8:11 PM, Korvin Szanto wrote: > > Thank you for raising this discussion Lane! > > > > I have the following suggestions: > > > > - We do what Larry has been suggesting for a while and reduce the > > number of core committee members we have. Perhaps we can use vacancies > > as an easy way to get to a more stable number > > I naturally agree here. :-) We can reduce the number of seats to 9 by > just only having a 3-seat elections from now on, and as terms roll off we > scale down to 9. > > > - If there are not enough nominated candidates to fill seats, we extend > > the nomination period by two weeks and announce the failure to fill as > > a way to hopefully garner more nominations and bring the issue to the > > forefront. Maybe we repeat this a couple times before calling a vote. > > Putting a single extension in the bylaws makes sense. I agree it > shouldn't be indefinite, or we end up just being kinda sad... > > > - If we still end up not having enough nominations, we move forward > > with a vote and expect the unfilled seats to be vacant until a special > > election can be called to fill them after a set period, maybe 6 months. > > There's an election every 8 month already, so I'd say we just treat it as > a vacancy in the next election, for which we already have a clear process. > > > - If we don't have contested seats we still hold a vote. At the very > > least this gives the electorate an opportunity to be active. > > I've been fine with not holding the vote in uncontested elections > historically, however, this is a good point about giving non-WG-members > something to do, even if it's trivial. I would be OK with this if others > are. > > > - If any candidate should get 0 votes, they are not elected and the > > seat they were nominated for becomes vacant. This grants the electorate > > an opportunity to deny a nominated person in case something > > disqualifying is found and allows us to avoid the painful expulsion > > process. > > Given that we're using STV/Proportional RCV, someone getting 0 votes in a > contested election is very unlikely. It would require basically everyone > to rank that person last. If even one person ranks them not-last, they are > likely to end up with at least a fraction of a vote. It's actually kinda > hard to get no votes in our election model. :-) (Though that's not a knock > on the election model.) > > --Larry Garfield > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/5ef5dd3c-f785-425b-8804-b74f92299658%40app.fastmail.com > . > Not quite, STV doesn't require a vote for each candidate so folks would just omit a candidate they'd prefer didn't get a seat when they vote. I totally agree that this will likely never happen, but I'd argue that we should avoid putting ourselves in a position where we seat a CC member or secretary that didn't receive a single vote. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to php-fig+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/CANeXGWXwjDmxaA8HCCTGGA72U-nMXa_QVw805T%2ByTwU2nQFGCA%40mail.gmail.com.
