Open Stack

On Oct 10, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 16:16 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Since the foundation list thread kicked off, there's been a bunch of
>> discussion on the foundation-board list and directly amongst ourselves. 
>> 
>> Now that we have this list, I think the first thing we need to do is
>> summarize where those discussions have lead to.
>> 
>> Here's my attempt, but please pile on with anything I missed. Also, I
>> haven't put anyone's name against any of these positions for fear of
>> misrepresenting anyone.

Great summary. I think you've captured things well from my perspective.

>> 
>> 
>> * The advice that we cannot tweak the cumulative voting system without 
>>   a bylaws change changes things. We now have the choice between:
>> 
>>     1) do nothing
>>     2) hold a vote on making any change change to the system
>>     3) hold a vote on tweaking the cumulative system
>>     4) hold a vote on changing to a particular system like
>>        STV/Condorcet
>> 
>>   I have expressed my order of preference as 4, 2, 3, 1

I have the same preferences in terms of our options around the voting system. My preference would be to go with Condorcet and use the system in place for the PTL and TC elections already. But, I am also open to STV.

>> 
>> * Apparently the membership numbers have greatly increased over the 
>>   6,000 members which I talked about. I don't see a public reference 
>>   to this number anywhere, so I won't repeat it here.
>> 
>> * There is debate over whether we could take a vote on a bylaws change 
>>   in time for the next election cycle or whether it would have to be 
>>   taken at the same time as the next round of elections.
>> 
>>   My take is that doing it with this years elections could give a
>>   better chance of turnout and we're unlikely to get a vote ready with 
>>   sufficient campaigning in advance of that anyway.

I like the idea of doing something soon if we could. However, I am most interested in getting the right outcome. Given that any change would require a vote prior to nominations opening in later November, I am concerned we are out of runway for this cycle. I think this warrants continued discussion and input. 

>> 
>> * Some feel that having multiple members affiliated with the same 
>>   organization on the board is a serious and related issue. We have 
>>   discussed whether we should hold a vote on this. Personally, I'm fine
>>   with including it as another vote along with the election system 
>>   vote.

Personally, I don't think further restricting membership by affiliation is the right thing for the foundation. However, I've heard the idea expressed often enough that I think we should allow the membership to vote on this point.

>> 
>> * We discussed whether our concern about getting a sufficient turnout 
>>   for a bylaws change points to a more fundamental underlying issue 
>>   with our membership. Some discussion about whether members should 
>>   automatically lose their membership if they do not vote in an
>>   election.
>> 
>> * We have had some discussion about STV vs Condorcet that would be 
>>   great to share, but I'm not best placed to summarize it
>> 
>> * Our original report is still waiting to be published along with all 
>>   other supporting materials from the Oct 3rd meeting
> 
> Oh, yes - I forgot:
> 
>  * An agenda item on this has been proposed for the November 4th 
>    meeting, mostly as a placeholder:
> 
>     https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/4Nov2013BoardMeeting
> 
>       Asking the individual members to vote on (a) changing the voting 
>       system and (b) our affiliation limit

I think there has been a suggestion that we consider a special meeting to take action on this issue prior to the next scheduled meeting on 11/4. There is no plan to do that yet and will depend on other decisions. But, I think it is worth noting that it has been suggested.

> 
> Mark.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Elections-committee mailing list
> Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131010/908e7dc8/attachment.pgp>