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

[Brian Gupta]

My apologies, I have never participated in an election, with my only
familiarity being a third party word of mouth description. (I actually
joined shortly after the last OGB election.)

-Brian

On Dec 12, 2007 12:13 PM, Bonnie Corwin <Bonnie.Corwin at sun.com> wrote:

> 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.)
> >
> > (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.)
>
> See section 6.3 of the constitution.  It defines how the election works
> and how the results are determined (using the balloting method known as
> Single Transferable Vote).
>
> I think if there is a desire to change how the election works, that
> requires a change to the constitution.
>
> But I don't see a big problem here.  The election is announced well in
> advance, and the voting period covers multiple weeks.  People have
> plenty of warning and plenty of chances to vote.
>
> And Steve is saying only 50% of the eligible voters need to vote to make
> it a valid election.


> Bonnie
> >
> > -Brian
> >
> >     cheers,
> >     steve
> >
> >     --
> >     stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org <mailto:stevel at opensolaris.org>
> >     | www.whacked.net <http://www.whacked.net>
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     advocacy-discuss mailing list
> >     advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org
> >     <mailto:advocacy-discuss at opensolaris.org>
> >     http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Brian Gupta
> >
> > http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
> > <http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/>
>
>


-- 
- Brian Gupta

http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/advocacy-discuss/attachments/20071212/da0cd0a4/attachment.html