+1 Eric and Andrew - I don't think we need more formal process.

Parker Grimes wrote:
> +1 from me too for Eric and Andrew
>
> Parker Grimes
> Southern Utah University
>
>
> On 7/28/07, *John Fereira* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>     At 04:50 AM 7/28/2007, Andrew Petro wrote:
>     >Jonathan, thank you for bringing this nomination and selection task
>     >to the attention of the uPortal developers.
>     >
>     > > I would appreciate one of you picking up the ball and taking
>     the next step.
>     >
>     >uPortal committers:
>     >I see this going one of two directions, either fine.  One is that,
>     >Apache-style, we arrive at happy consensus as to whom the two
>     >uPortal-developer-selected steering committee members will be.  I
>     >see that Cris Holdorph and Drew Wills have already spoken up along
>     >these lines.  Additional momentum could result in a feeling of
>     consensus.
>     >Enough +1s and no objections to Cris's proposal, and we've had our
>     >vote.  It's not totally implausible that this approach could work
>     >for a small community such as ours.  And I think Eric Dalquist would
>     >make a particularly excellent steering committee representative.
>
>     +1 for Eric and Andrew from me too.
>
>
>
>
>
>     >Another direction we may need to go here is a more formal process of
>     >nominations and voting.  In order to go that route we'd need to
>     >bootstrap some rules.
>     >
>     >
>     >Here's what I propose as a framework for voting:
>     >
>     >1) uPortal committers may post nominations to this uportal-dev@
>     >list, with the same deadline for nominations as that for the
>     >stakeholder nominations.  That is, nominations must be posted to the
>     >list by 5:00 PM EDT (GMT-4) on Wednesday, August 15, 2007.
>     >2) We then vote, on the uportal-dev@ list, with each committer
>     >invited to cast one vote for each open position (that is, in the
>     >present case, two votes).  Voting closes on Tuesday, September 4,
>     >2007 (to comport with "results announced soon after Wednesday,
>     >September 5, 2007").
>     >3) The top two vote recipients as of the election deadline are
>     >recognized as the uPortal developer representatives to the
>     steering committee.
>     >4) The uportal committers look to the JA-SIG Elections Committee to
>     >moderate this process, decide any election issues that may arise.
>     >
>     >I would look to the steering committee itself once instituted to
>     >establish some procedures around future elections, handling future
>     >committee vacancies, etc.
>     >
>     >
>     >So, two questions:
>     >1) Is there interest in pursuing Cris's nomination of myself and
>     >Eric Dalquist to be the uPortal developer representatives to the
>     >uPortal project steering committee, such that a more formal vote is
>     >not necessary? +1s and/or objections to that approach would be
>     >helpful.  If anyone has the objection "I'd prefer we have a more
>     >formal vote than look for less formal consensus", I think that's
>     >worth hearing and would be a good reason to go the more formal
>     vote route.
>
>     +1 for the informal vote, at least for this election.  Of course, if
>     we start to get lots of nominations for other people that would
>     complicate things.  If that happens,  I suggest we use the formal
>     model that you've described.  In other words,  amend the formal vote
>     process such that if at the end of the nomination process there are
>     only as many people nominated for which there are vacancies, and the
>     nominees have not received a -1, a formal vote is not necessary.
>
>
>
>     >2) If a more formal vote is necessary, are the above rules supported
>     >by the participants?  Are they sufficient? Discussion towards
>     >consensus on the rules here may be helpful.
>     >
>     >Andrew
>     >
>     >Jonathan Markow wrote:
>     >>Yesterday the JA-SIG Election Committee distributed a Call for
>     >>Nominations announcing the start of an election cycle for two board
>     >>director positions and three uPortal Project Steering Committee
>     >>stakeholder positions.  Information about the steering committee,
>     >>the elections, and other governance-related items can be found at
>     >>http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/JA-SIG+Governance.
>     >>
>     >>The steering committee model calls for two developers, to be
>     >>selected by the group of current committers, to serve on the
>     >>committee.  This selection isn't governed by a board-defined
>     >>election process.  It's left up to you to determine how to best
>     >>choose the two developer representatives.
>     >>
>     >>The formal election process for directors and stakeholders will
>     >>take approximately six weeks, starting with yesterday's
>     >>announcement.  I'd like to encourage you folks to begin your own
>     >>process now so that the developer representatives can be announced
>     >>concurrently with the stakeholders and board rep.  At that point we
>     >>should be ready to go with a first steering committee meeting
>     >>(which likely will be via telephone).  I will also participate in
>     >>an ex officio capacity as Acting JA-SIG Executive Director.
>     >>
>     >>The wiki documentation about the uPortal Project Steering Committee
>     >>is fairly skeletal and that's intentional.  This is our first
>     >>experience with a governing committee of this type, and, while we
>     >>have planned and vetted the concept for a number of months, we all
>     >>are nevertheless going to be experiencing it for the first
>     >>time.  Our expectation is that it will need some tweaking along the
>     >>way, and we regard it as a work-in-progress to be refined as we
>     >>collectively figure out what works and what doesn't.
>     >>
>     >>I would appreciate one of you picking up the ball and taking the
>     >>next step.  I'll make myself available to answer any questions
>     >>either by email or by conference call, and I know the rest of the
>     >>board will extend the same offer.
>     >>Best of luck with your selection process.  We're looking forward to
>     >>bringing it all together.
>     >>
>     >>Thanks,
>     >>Jonathan
>     >>--
>     >>You are currently subscribed to [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]> as:
>     >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     >>To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
>     >>http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
>     >
>     >
>     >--
>     >You are currently subscribed to [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]> as:
>     >[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     >To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
>     >http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
>
>     John Fereira
>     [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     Ithaca, NY
>
>
>     --
>     You are currently subscribed to [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]> as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>     To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
>     http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
>
>
> -- 
> You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
> http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev

-- 
You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev

Reply via email to