[advocacy-discuss] Creating a formal procedure to assign contributor status to the advocacy CG.

[Stephen Lau]

Brian Gupta wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007 11:35 AM, Stephen Lau <stevel at opensolaris.org 
> <mailto:stevel at opensolaris.org>> wrote:
>
>     Bonnie Corwin wrote:
>     > Jim Grisanzio wrote:
>     >> Stephen Lau wrote:
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>> The 2007 OGB elections were almost invalid because we weren't able
>     >>> to get high enough voter turnout because all the user group
>     leaders
>     >>> were granted contributor grants that gave them a vote.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Steve ... what's the formula we use to figure the proper percentage
>     >> for the vote?
>     >>
>     >> Jim
>     >
>     > I believe it's 1/3 per section 5.9 of the constitution (Member
>     Quorum).
>     >
>     > Bonnie
>     Actually I believe it's a quorum (1/3) that have to be present,
>     but the
>     vote must be a majority vote (~50%) of that quorum.
>     Since the election happens electronically, the "quorum" is really
>     everybody (since everybody can equally access poll.os.o), so there
>     needs
>     to be at least 50% turnout for the vote to count.
>
>
> I don't know if this is valid. If you take timezones, work schedules, 
> vacations, family conflicts, and other mitigating circumstances into 
> the equation, it would be reasonable to assume that a quorum mustn't 
> neccesarily consist of all core contribs. (As I think you are implying.)
>
The voting period was open for quite a while to mitigate those factors:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/cab/OGB_Election_Status/
2 weeks is plenty of time to take into account all those factors.
> (I think every one of us can come up with an example of a time that we 
> can't be available for a vote, and with the number of people eligible 
> having a unanimous time is next to impossible.)
>
> I don't know if it is possible in time for the 2008 OGB elections, but 
> I would like to propose an alternate method of voting, where votes are 
> collected, and can be adjusted, over a fixed time period. (Say 1 week) 
> This would most likely be done through a web form that allows 
> multi-session voting.
>
> (If there is interest in pursuing this, let me know, and I will start 
> poking around for options.)
>
I'd rather not.  We've got plenty of other things to do without building 
out or modifying our existing voting system. 

cheers,
steve

-- 
stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net