Open Stack

I'd be willing to help w/ whatever STV stuff is required... As mentioned,
the ASF uses it and has even booted up a small project (Apache STeVe) which
hosts our STV tools (btw: just saying STV isn't enough... you also need to
say which method to use: the ASF uses Meeks Method)


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Simon Anderson <simon at dreamhost.com>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> 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 (tie-line 363)
>> tmmoore at us.ibm.com
>>
>> [image: Inactive hide details for Mark McLoughlin ---10/11/2013 09:41:11
>> AM---Hi Todd, Monty, Simon, Tim, Rob, Troy, Jonathan and I had]Mark
>> 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>
>>
>>    To:
>>
>>
>> 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
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elections-committee mailing list
> Elections-committee at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131011/de32a5db/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131011/de32a5db/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131011/de32a5db/attachment-0001.gif>