Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> It still looks strange to have the voting body to vote to extend the term > of the current board, not the same as a general election. > > Extending the terms of some leadership tend to happen under situations > where something prevents the holding of regular elections... nothing > comparable exists here for the GNOME Foundation. The proposal is about doing something out of the ordinary processes defined by the bylaws -- that is why we are consulting the membership. Rather than point out that the situation is extraordinary, please tell us your feelings or concerns about the proposal as a member. - Jeff -- Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ "Building a Kernel is a requirement for Securing Servers." - Oscar Plameras ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
It still looks strange to have the voting body to vote to extend the term of the current board, not the same as a general election. Extending the terms of some leadership tend to happen under situations where something prevents the holding of regular elections... nothing comparable exists here for the GNOME Foundation. On 8/9/07, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I don't have anything against the current board, BUT extending a term > > after the voters cast their vote is very wrong. > > As mentioned in the original mail: "(Note that the Board is unlikely to > make > a change like this without formally consulting our membership via a > referendum.)" -> that means casting a vote. > > - Jeff > > -- > Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain > http://www.osimconference.com/ > > "If you want to start a debate on a subject, however, all that seems to > be necessary is to involve perennial target Richard Gooch." - LWN > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > -- Andy Tai, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> I don't have anything against the current board, BUT extending a term > after the voters cast their vote is very wrong. As mentioned in the original mail: "(Note that the Board is unlikely to make a change like this without formally consulting our membership via a referendum.)" -> that means casting a vote. - Jeff -- Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ "If you want to start a debate on a subject, however, all that seems to be necessary is to involve perennial target Richard Gooch." - LWN ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
It's like extending George Bush's term by two years... a rather drastic thing to do... (No, I don't mean anyone on the board is like George Bush... sorry if that offends anyone) On 8/7/07, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > Jeff Waugh wrote: > > So here's the proposal: I'd like to suggest we shift the election cycle > back > > six months, landing the process in May and June [1]. More > controversially, I > > reckon the best way to achieve this without a lot of pain would be to > extend > > the current Board's term by six months. > > Fully support this - I have no problem with the current board holding on > for another 6 months. > > Cheers, > Dave. > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
Shaun McCance a écrit : > On another note, if anybody actually has a problem with > extending this board's term (I don't, and nobody else > who's replied so far seems to), another option would > be to phase the shift in over the next two or three > years by extending those terms by three or two months. I don't have anything against the current board, BUT extending a term after the voters cast their vote is very wrong. Snark ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
> While this year's and last year's GUADECs were in July, previous GUADECs > have been in April (2001), May (2005), and June (2004). If we have > elections in May and June, then we wouldn't want to have future GUADECs > any earlier than July. I don't know if that's a problem, but it is worth > mentioning. June is realistic, considering the timeline. Typically, preliminary results are announced in early December, finalising a couple of weeks later. So that works okay with GUADEC in June, but there's certainly the option of shifting it only by five months. > Related to this, I worry about having the elections too close to GUADEC. > Many of us just can't make it to GUADEC every single year, for various > reasons. Board members, of course, should make GUADEC a very high > priority. But if you're only elected two weeks before GUADEC, it may be > too late to make travel arrangements, particularly if you need a visa. The travel issue is a *very* good reason to look at changing it only by five months. Thanks very much for pointing that out. (Note that the Foundation has provided travel assistance to Board members in the past, so this not generally a problem. The timing and costs of late travel arrangements is.) > On another note, if anybody actually has a problem with extending this > board's term (I don't, and nobody else who's replied so far seems to), > another option would be to phase the shift in over the next two or three > years by extending those terms by three or two months. That was one of the soft options raised a couple of years back. I'd prefer to simply fix the problem once and for all. - Jeff -- Open Source in Mobile 2007: Madrid, Spain http://www.osimconference.com/ "Python amazes me for its concision. The current prototype is all of 900 lines of code, yet it contains a lexer, parser (recursive descent), core language interpreter, and parallelizing process spawner." - Raph Levien on Rebar ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Proposal: Shift election cycle back six months
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 22:21 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > Hi all, > > This is an issue various previous Boards have discussed, and it came up very > briefly during GUADEC this year, but I'm going to do the bullet-taking thing > I enjoy so much, and propose it here for real. :-) > > Currently the GNOME election process runs from November to December, and the > new Board starts in January. GUADEC has traditionally been in June and July. > > This utterly sucks because the Board has to wait *six months* before it gets > a face-to-face meeting. The f2f is always a formative and energising process > for the Board, and it would really help to have one much closer to the start > of the Board's term. In the past we've discussed the idea of a Board retreat > early in the year... *But* that would cost Real Money to fly everyone to the > same place. Considering we already have GUADEC, I think that's a huge waste. > > So here's the proposal: I'd like to suggest we shift the election cycle back > six months, landing the process in May and June [1]. More controversially, I > reckon the best way to achieve this without a lot of pain would be to extend > the current Board's term by six months. While this year's and last year's GUADECs were in July, previous GUADECs have been in April (2001), May (2005), and June (2004). If we have elections in May and June, then we wouldn't want to have future GUADECs any earlier than July. I don't know if that's a problem, but it is worth mentioning. Related to this, I worry about having the elections too close to GUADEC. Many of us just can't make it to GUADEC every single year, for various reasons. Board members, of course, should make GUADEC a very high priority. But if you're only elected two weeks before GUADEC, it may be too late to make travel arrangements, particularly if you need a visa. I see the value in having a face-to-face meeting early in the board's term, but I think there should be anough post-election, pre-GUADEC time for travel arrangments to be made. On another note, if anybody actually has a problem with extending this board's term (I don't, and nobody else who's replied so far seems to), another option would be to phase the shift in over the next two or three years by extending those terms by three or two months. -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
