[cab-discuss] Nominations?

[Al Hopper]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Michelle Olson wrote:

> Hi Al,
>
> Thanks for your response. I'm less concerned about the mechanism than
> the communication and expectations around it. A test of the mechanism
> that includes *everyone* who is eligible is the only way to know if
> what we've built with the constitution and voting mechanism will
> really work for the larger group. If you don't test it with 'the
> people' before you ask them to use it to make a decision about their
> leadership, I submit that it will not work. If and when folks complain
> about the rules or whatever, I don't think we can say 'but it works
> for Apache'! :)

Fair enough.  And I understand that you work with documentation - so you
probably see more "opportunities" for confusion than I ever will!  :)

> I'm not trying to be flip, but I'm remembering the Contributor Awards,
> which seemed like a totally clear-cut, simple thing to determine and
> it was a shame to watch 'in action'. I'd hate to repeat that history.

But I think, in this case, you're comparing apples to elephants - because
the Contributor Awards were done with no tools and few ground rules - but
with the very best of intentions.  It resulted in a chaotic email
exchange...

> If you send out the voting details for the constitution (which is what
> the community has asked for), run that vote with success, and ratify
> the document we'll be in a great position to determine new leadership.
> Adn ultimately, I think it will be faster that way because we'll avoid
> all the FUD and confusion...OK maybe not all of it :) but the worst of
> it. THanks for listening.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not dismissing your points and they present
food for thought and serve (at least to me) as a warning to Proceed With
Caution.  With that in mind it would be smart to get more input and
comments before we try to push a "this-will-work" type election/voting
mechanism.

I'll put this on the next CAB meeting to discuss.  Stay tuned [I wonder
where I got this "stay tuned" phrase from! :) ]

And Thanks again for your input.

> -Michelle

.... email headers trimmed .....
> >
> >On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Michelle Olson wrote:
> >
> >> I think we should vote on something, with the new mechanism, before
> we
> >> vote in the election. It is important to test the new mechanism and
> >> our assumptions about how it will work. So, I'd vote to ratify the
> >> Constitution first, to be sure it works well for everyone, then
> vote
> >> to elect new membership on a separate ballot.
> >
> >Hi Michelle!  If you're concerned about the voting mechanism itself,
> I
> >don't think that we need to run an actual vote to confirm whether it
> works
> >- since it's based on the same code/facility used by Apache.Org.  A
> simple
> >dummy test conducted by a selected group of test voters will confirm
> if
> >the software works as intended.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Al Hopper  Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX.  al at logical-approach.com
> >           Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134  Timezone: US CDT
> >OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
> >             OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
>

Regards,

Al Hopper  Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX.  al at logical-approach.com
           Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134  Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
             OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006