Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Michael Meeks wrote (22-11-10 11:50)
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.
What is a balance between a reasonable, common term (2 or 3 years)
and non-sense (6 months)?
In line with this, I would propose split elections: Appr. 50% of the
seats each year.
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
Can you pls tell what STV is?
And what has a fair voting scheme to do with 100% each year or 50%
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
Then, there is the admin overhead of elections, and the problems of
getting people to vote more regularly.
Both voting each year for 100% of the seats, or each year for 50% of
the seats, result in one election per year. With less counting in the
letter case ;-)
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.
The reasons you gave, that were clear for me so far, did not at all
Maybe you can further explain what you think to gain with 100% of the
seats each year?
- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws · Cor Nouws
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws · Bernhard Dippold
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws · Volker Merschmann
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws · Gianluca Turconi
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy