Hi guys,
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 01:57 +0100, Bernhard Dippold wrote:
> Cor Nouws schrieb:
> >>> Has been considered that this leads to a situation where each year
> >>> people have to get used to the tasks, the other board members etc. so
> >>> that maybe it is a bit inefficient?
This is fairly normal, and there is usually both change and continuity
in things like the GNOME board. Also, old-timers are usually around and
willing to help out mentoring / getting people up-to-speed.
> >> Well, that is a good question. My personal take was at first for a 2
> >> years mandate. Then some others thought that 6 months would be good. I
> >> sliced the apple into two :)
I like a year-long term; it seems a good balance.
> > In line with this, I would propose split elections: Appr. 50% of the
> > seats each year.
> +1
So - I havn't got to looking at this in detail yet; but I strongly
recommend a 'fair' voting scheme - such as used by GNOME - ie. STV. This
makes it very difficult for a contributor with 51% of the votes to get
100% of the seats [ which 1st past the post assures ].
However - the obvious benefits of STV are really watered down by a
smaller electorate due to rounding errors; obviously, if (using STV) you
elect one person at a time, you have some of the first-past-the-post
problems.
Then, there is the admin overhead of elections, and the problems of
getting people to vote more regularly.
Thus, overall - I would strongly recommend a single, big vote, once per
year to elect everyone - and not worry about the continuity issues: they
tend to fix themselves. The electorate tends to value such things as
"experience" in the candidate's statements.
HTH,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
