Open Stack

Absolutely.

On 10/11/2013 11:42 AM, Simon Anderson wrote:
> Thanks Todd and Mark for summarizing the conference call, and everyone
> on the committee for all the work put in to date to look at this
> important issue and come up with good proposals to put before the
> membership. Having just joined the committee, I can see how much thought
> and work you've all put into this.
> 
> I am definitely of the view that we should put a resolution to amend the
> bylaws, and thereby adopt a Single Transferable Vote (STV) voting system
> (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote) or Condorcet
> voting system (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method) for
> the next individual member Directors election to be held in January
> 2014. I think there is strong interest from the community to see this
> put forward for a vote, and I think we can move quickly but with clear
> communication and do that over the next 4-5 weeks.
> 
> I am happy to put my hand up to volunteer to prepare and present the STV
> system to the Board. I'll need some input from other committee members
> along the way, but I can commit time to this over this weekend and into
> early next week. Personally, I think that there are good arguments for
> using each of STV or Condorcet, and through this debate we will be able
> balance these arguments and find the right option to present to members.
> Both are "order of preference" voting systems, which is overall what I
> hear from the community is wanted.
> 
> Thanks again, and I'll start working on the STV presentation today.
> 
> 
> Best,
> Simon Anderson
> CEO, DreamHost
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Todd Moore <tmmoore at us.ibm.com
> <mailto:tmmoore at us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks Mark.  Good summary.  
> 
>     It is worth adding that:
> 
>     Jonathan will confer with counsel again around the two options
>     discussed today.
> 
>     There seemed to be sentiment that each system would need an accurate
>     description that could be referenced by a bylaws change..  *_I need
>     two volunteers_** *to describe the system and pro's and con's for
>     submission to the board for debate.
> 
>     We await further direction out of Jonathan's investigations.  
> 
>     Another committee discussion early next week is required, if we are
>     to use the Summit window as was suggested, to bring a revised system
>     to the membership for a vote.  I proposed Wednesday at 1300 UTC
>     again.  If this is acceptable email me please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     Todd M. Moore
> 
>     Director, Interoperability and Partnerships
> 
>     11501 Burnet Rd. MS 9035H014
>     Austin, TX , 78758.  (512) 286-7643 <tel:%28512%29%20286-7643>
>     (tie-line 363)
>     tmmoore at us.ibm.com <mailto:tmmoore at us.ibm.com>
> 
>     Inactive hide details for Mark McLoughlin ---10/11/2013 09:41:11
>     AM---Hi Todd, Monty, Simon, Tim, Rob, Troy, Jonathan and I hadMark
>     McLoughlin ---10/11/2013 09:41:11 AM---Hi Todd, Monty, Simon, Tim,
>     Rob, Troy, Jonathan and I had a call today for
> 
> 
>         From:
> 
>     	
>     Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com <mailto:markmc at redhat.com>>
> 
>         To:
> 
>     	
>     elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:elections-committee at lists.openstack.org>,
> 
>         Date:
> 
>     	
>     10/11/2013 09:41 AM
> 
>         Subject:
> 
>     	
>     [Elections-committee] Oct 11 meeting
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>     Hi
> 
>     Todd, Monty, Simon, Tim, Rob, Troy, Jonathan and I had a call today for
>     over an hour
> 
>     I won't attempt to fully summarize the discussion, so fill in anything I
>     missed.
> 
>      - general consensus (AFAICT) that we should move forward with
>        recommending a change to the system
> 
>      - a feeling that the board should recommend a particular system and
>        not put the choice of system up for a vote
> 
>      - STV and some Condorcet variant were still the two contenders
>        discussed
> 
>      - there is a risk that any alternate system to could prove to make
>        the process of obtaining non-profit status more difficult,
>        particularly with Condorcet (it's not used by other orgs, harder to
>        explain, etc.)
> 
>      - another risk is that if someone successfully challenged an
>        election, the board would be invalid and unable to make decisions.
>        In other words, a system that is open to challenge could have very
>        serious consequences
> 
>      - the arguments in favour of STV, then, centred around these risks
>        and that it's a vast improvement in its own right
> 
>      - the arguments in favour of Condorcet largely centred around
>        consistency with the "technical community" elections and that we
>        know how to run these elections
> 
>      - we also had some discussion about timing. Some preference expressed
>        for pushing ahead quickly and having a vote which coincides with
>        the summit in an attempt to get more turnout. Others fear that that
>        strategy could backfire.
> 
>     Mark.
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Elections-committee mailing list
>     Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Elections-committee mailing list
>     Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Elections-committee mailing list
> Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee
>