Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 02:16:42PM +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote: > Top-posting as I'll try to summarize/re-start/reword/whatever the right word > is, > this thread: > > It seems to me that the problem we're trying to solve here is how we can help > voters to make more thoughtful choices (note

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 4:09 PM Sean Dague wrote: > On 10/03/2016 12:46 PM, Edward Leafe wrote: > > > > > We are fortunate in that all of the candidates are exceptionally > well-qualified, and those elected have put in excellent service while on > the TC. But one thing I'm afraid

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Top-posting as I'll try to summarize/re-start/reword/whatever the right word is, this thread: It seems to me that the problem we're trying to solve here is how we can help voters to make more thoughtful choices (note that I'm not saying they currently don't. I'm not judging the voters but, as

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Ed Leafe wrote: > Why do we need a week to nominate? Open it up a month before the election, > and close it a week before. Or open it for two days, and close it a week > before. I don’t understand why, other than procrastination, we need such a > long period. If you’re serious about serving,

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

My personal opinion, speaking as a non-candidate, is that it's very likely true name recognition plays a role. In fact if I was to vote I would do so and probably vote for Monty or Doug cause I like how they operate and I'm familiar with them. And if I don't like someone, I won't vote for them.

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 02:07 PM, Clay Gerrard wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 2016-10-11 01:40 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: There really needs to be a period when a) we know who all the

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 02:35 PM, Thiago da Silva wrote: On 10/11/2016 01:21 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 2016-10-11 12:57 PM, Thiago da Silva wrote: On 10/11/2016 12:00 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: Just in case folks care, now is the best

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 10/11/2016 01:21 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 2016-10-11 12:57 PM, Thiago da Silva wrote: On 10/11/2016 12:00 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: Just in case folks care, now is the best time to discuss our election process and

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: > On 2016-10-11 01:40 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: > >> On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: >> >> There really needs to be a period when a) we know who all the candidates are, and b) voting

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 01:43 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: Instead of two week process, make it three: Again as I replied to Ed's post, I think we can find options that fit in the current timeframe. Why do we need a week to nominate? Open

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Thiago da Silva wrote: > > it would also be nice to have a better place for the questions/answers to > be stored. During last week there was a ton of great discussion, but when > it came to voting time (towards end of the week) it was

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 01:42 PM, Chris Dent wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Anita Kuno wrote: * Getting rid of self nomination. Nominations come from the electorate at large. They can be refused of course. What is the current problem with self nomination? (I almost missed this since it was after your

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 01:40 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: There really needs to be a period when a) we know who all the candidates are, and b) voting has not yet begun. Why? The voting period is open for a period of several days, voters

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: > I think one would get a much better sense asking people if they voted when > they see them at summit or other live events and ask them why not if they say > no. As I said in an earlier email, I have done such unscientific

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: > >> Instead of two week process, make it three: > > Again as I replied to Ed's post, I think we can find options that fit in the > current timeframe. Why do we need a week to nominate? Open it up a month before the

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016, Anita Kuno wrote: * Getting rid of self nomination. Nominations come from the electorate at large. They can be refused of course. What is the current problem with self nomination? (I almost missed this since it was after your valediction) I guess the least roundabout

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: >> There really needs to be a period when a) we know who all the candidates >> are, and b) voting has not yet begun. > > Why? > > The voting period is open for a period of several days, voters have the > ability to vote at

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 12:55 PM, Ruby Loo wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Chris Dent wrote: Based on the turnout numbers and a bit of unscientific number crunching on the voting results it seems that the electorate was rather more engaged this time around. That's

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 12:08 PM, Chris Dent wrote: Based on the turnout numbers and a bit of unscientific number crunching on the voting results it seems that the electorate was rather more engaged this time around. That's _great_. As others have said I imagine some significant part of that was because

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 12:57 PM, Thiago da Silva wrote: On 10/11/2016 12:00 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: Just in case folks care, now is the best time to discuss our election process and suggest options or changes for the next round of

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-11 12:00 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: Just in case folks care, now is the best time to discuss our election process and suggest options or changes for the next round of elections. I'm not adverse to discussing it I just

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 10/11/2016 12:00 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: Just in case folks care, now is the best time to discuss our election process and suggest options or changes for the next round of elections. I'm not adverse to discussing it I

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Chris Dent wrote: > > Based on the turnout numbers and a bit of unscientific number > crunching on the voting results it seems that the electorate was > rather more engaged this time around. That's _great_. > > As others have said I

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Based on the turnout numbers and a bit of unscientific number crunching on the voting results it seems that the electorate was rather more engaged this time around. That's _great_. As others have said I imagine some significant part of that was because of more than one mailing of the ballots to

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Anita Kuno wrote: > Just in case folks care, now is the best time to discuss our election process > and suggest options or changes for the next round of elections. I'm not > adverse to discussing it I just think the best time for doing so is

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-04 04:53 PM, Anita Kuno wrote: On 16-10-04 12:54 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Doug Hellmann wrote: John Davidge wrote: Thierry, I'm surprised by your open hostility towards candidates. Accusing people of 'pretending' to care about things that they've taken the time to This is an

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 10/03/2016 12:46 PM, Edward Leafe wrote: > > > We are fortunate in that all of the candidates are exceptionally > well-qualified, and those elected have put in excellent service while on > the TC. But one thing I'm afraid of

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 10/03/2016 12:46 PM, Edward Leafe wrote: > We are fortunate in that all of the candidates are exceptionally > well-qualified, and those elected have put in excellent service while on the > TC. But one thing I'm afraid of is that we tend to get into a situation where > groupthink [0] is very

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Excerpts from Ed Leafe's message of 2016-10-04 16:38:50 -0500: > On Oct 4, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > >> 1) Allow time between the nominations and the voting. Half of the > >> candidates don’t announce until the last day or two, and that doesn’t > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 4, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> 1) Allow time between the nominations and the voting. Half of the candidates >> don’t announce until the last day or two, and that doesn’t leave very much >> time to get to know them. > > It seems like a reasonable

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote: It seems like a reasonable idea, but why limit the period where we discuss these "big issues" to a week or so every 6 months? Exactly this. If TC elections are the catalyst for having the kinds of discussions that we've had this week then we should

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Excerpts from Ed Leafe's message of 2016-10-04 14:31:45 -0500: > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > >> In French, "prétendre" has a connotation of "profess" or simply > >> "say", which is very different from the more negative connotation > >> of

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > >> In French, "prétendre" has a connotation of "profess" or simply > >> "say", which is very different from the more negative connotation > >> of

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 16-10-04 12:54 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Doug Hellmann wrote: John Davidge wrote: Thierry, I'm surprised by your open hostility towards candidates. Accusing people of 'pretending' to care about things that they've taken the time to This is an excellent example of needing to know the

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> In French, "prétendre" has a connotation of "profess" or simply >> "say", which is very different from the more negative connotation >> of "pretend" in English where common use implies some false intent. >> Knowing

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Doug Hellmann wrote: > John Davidge wrote: >> Thierry, I'm surprised by your open hostility towards candidates. >> Accusing >> people of 'pretending' to care about things that they've taken the >> time to > > This is an excellent example of needing to know the speaker, as > well as their words,

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Excerpts from John Davidge's message of 2016-10-04 14:44:00 +: > Thierry Carrez wrote: > > >Edward Leafe wrote: > >> [...] > >> The current candidacy essay would now be posted in the campaign > >> period, > >>rather than at the time of nomination, and should exclude the sort > >>of >

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Thierry Carrez wrote: >Edward Leafe wrote: >> [...] >> The current candidacy essay would now be posted in the campaign period, >>rather than at the time of nomination, and should exclude the sort of >>biographical information that is currently the most important piece for >>many people. [...] >

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Edward Leafe wrote: > [...] > The current candidacy essay would now be posted in the campaign period, > rather than at the time of nomination, and should exclude the sort of > biographical information that is currently the most important piece for many > people. [...] As other mentioned, this

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 3, 2016 14:15, "Edward Leafe" wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Clay Gerrard wrote: > > > >> After the nominations close, the election officials will assign each candidate a non-identifying label, such as a random number, and those officials

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 2016-10-03 16:15:01 -0500 (-0500), Edward Leafe wrote: [...] > So I think that there is evidence that unless you are already > well-known, most people aren't going to take the time to dig > deeper. Maybe anonymous campaigns aren't the answer, but they > certainly would help in this regard.

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 3, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Of course, I read the essays of those who I don't know more carefully, and > I often go searching through my ML archives to see if we've interacted on > threads in the past. Still, I'm very unlikely to rank somebody higher than

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 3, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Clay Gerrard wrote: > >> After the nominations close, the election officials will assign each >> candidate a non-identifying label, such as a random number, and those >> officials will be the only ones who know which candidate is associated

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Oct 3, 2016, at 12:51 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > When I vote, I consider the positions a candidate takes, the ideas > they propose, and -- equally importantly -- their track record of > actually getting things done. Hiding the candidate's identity makes > it impossible

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 03/10/2016 1:18 PM, Clay Gerrard wrote: > I think a more common problem is when people vote for a *name* they > recognize without really knowing that person or what they're about. Or > perhaps just as bad - *not* voting because they realize they have on > context to consider these candidates

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Excerpts from Edward Leafe's message of 2016-10-03 11:46:41 -0500: > So the period of self-nominations for the Technical Committee seats has > ended, and the voting has begun. I've been a very close observer of this > process for several cycles, and I have some ideas I'd like to share. Full >

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Excerpts from Clay Gerrard's message of 2016-10-03 10:18:43 -0700: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Edward Leafe wrote: > > > After the nominations close, the election officials will assign each > > candidate a non-identifying label, such as a random number, and those > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-10-03 17:35:44 +: > On 03/10/2016 17:49, Edward Leafe wrote: > > So the period of self-nominations for the Technical Committee seats has > > ended, and the voting has begun. I've been a very close observer of this > > process for several cycles,

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On 03/10/2016 17:49, Edward Leafe wrote: > So the period of self-nominations for the Technical Committee seats has > ended, and the voting has begun. I've been a very close observer of this > process for several cycles, and I have some ideas I'd like to share. Full > disclosure: I am a current

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Edward Leafe wrote: > After the nominations close, the election officials will assign each > candidate a non-identifying label, such as a random number, and those > officials will be the only ones who know which candidate is associated with > which

[openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

So the period of self-nominations for the Technical Committee seats has ended, and the voting has begun. I've been a very close observer of this process for several cycles, and I have some ideas I'd like to share. Full disclosure: I am a current candidate for the TC, and have been a candidate