Open Stack

Great! Thanks.


Best,
Simon Anderson
CEO, DreamHost


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Jim Jagielski <jimjag at gmail.com> wrote:

> There is: http://wiki.apache.org/general/BoardVoting
>
> and the code is available at http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/steve/trunk/
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Simon Anderson <simon at dreamhost.com>wrote:
>
>> Thanks Jim. Do you have some baseline descriptive content (or links to
>> it) on the method used that I can incorporate into the STV briefing for the
>> OpenStack Board? And I'll run the briefing past you for content and
>> corrections.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Simon Anderson
>> CEO, DreamHost
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jim Jagielski <jimjag at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20131011/030d6078/attachment-0001.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/20131011/030d6078/attachment-0002.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/20131011/030d6078/attachment-0003.gif>