Open Stack

On 10/13/2013 01:29 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Apologies for missing the call, something unexpected came up.
> 
> Many thanks for the notes!
> 
> Questions inline ...
> 
> On Sun, 2013-10-13 at 10:19 -0500, Todd Moore wrote:
>>
>> The Election Committee met to discuss approaches to the fastest path to
>> having a ballot on changing voting systems for the election of individual
>> directors.
>>
>> In attendance: Alan Clark, Jonathan Bryce, Tim Bell, Monty Taylor, Todd
>> Moore, Mark Radcliffe
>>
>> The group discussed several options for how to proceed and the timelines
>> required to make a ballot available to the electorate for a bylaws change.
>> Jonathan described for the group the mechanics and timing required for
>> having a ballot and amendment ready to coincide with the November Summit.
>> Much of the discussion was on this option and how to achieve a tight
>> schedule.  Mark cautioned us that sufficient time was needed to make sure
>> we had properly educated the electorate.  This resulted in two ideas for
>> consideration.
>>
>> Option 1: Vote concurrent with Summit.  Essentially, We would need to call
>> a special board meeting by Tuesday for a Friday session of the full board
>> to meet the time constraints of opening a vote at the Summit.  Normal
>> secretary tasks of validating voter roles, producing communications, etc
>> would have to been handled in parallel with the heavy task load associated
>> with producing the Summit.
> 
> For this option, I'm presuming we would want consensus amongst the
> committee as to which method we recommend and the board would vote to
> endorse this recommendation on Friday?
> 
> i.e. we're not talking about asking the electorate to choose between
> voting systems?

That is correct.

>> Option 2: Education and Feedback at the Summit with a vote in January.  In
>> this option, we would also want to call a special session of the board to
>> gain concurrence as to which of the two approaches under consideration
>> would be put forward.  Jonathan offered to arrange a town hall style
>> meeting to educate people and seek feedback to tailor a January vote on a
>> system.
> 
> For both options, to what extent do we see the Foundation running an
> awareness campaign around this vote? 

I think we have to run a campaign - both individually and via the
Foundation.

>> STV or Condorcet are under consideration as both provide a means of
>> offsetting the effects of casting all 8 votes for a single individual in
>> the current cumulative voting system.  The impression is that the
>> electorate is not expressing their complete preference for the elected
>> slate for fear that they have to cast their vote in a block to ensure their
>> individual of choice is elected.  Neither of these systems mitigate large
>> affiliated groups from expressing their vote for a single candidate, but
>> the they do improve the likelihood that the slate of directors chosen is
>> more thoughtfully elected as voter angst over the casting of all 8 votes as
>> 1 would no longer be an issue.  Testing against past data would suggest
>> that the end results would have been the same directors elected in the new
>> system.  So careful education as to how to use and view either new system
>> would be required.
>>
>> Monty took the todo to describe the benefits and operation in simple terms
>> as he writes up the reasoning behind having a change of systems.
>>
>> Mark R. discussed the need to have a well described thoroughly vetted
>> Condorcet systems available for inspection.  This would need to be looked
>> at from a Delaware law and IRS perspective.  We have not seen any existing
>> examples of this in practice in an organization like ours that is a
>> Delaware corporation.
>>
>> The group discussed various ways to write up a proposed bylaws amendment
>> that allowed for both the specificity required and the flexibility needed.
>> Jonathan and others have examined the bylaws of other organizations.
>> Jonathan and Mark R. will work on a proposed amendment.
>>
>> Monty and Simon have the task of describing both voting methods.  In order
>> to provide sufficient time for review documents are needed by EOD Monday.
>> Todd will schedule another session Tuesday 8AM of the Election Committee.
>>
>> Based on Tuesday mornings results, Alan will call a session for Friday.
>> All members of the Election Committee are urged to be available Tuesday AM.
>>
>> Alan will make sure that all individual directors have been allowed to add
>> their input into this process.
> 
> Is running a vote on changing the affiliation limits off the table?
> 
> I can see the argument for not doing so, especially in the case of
> Option 1 - we just don't have time.

We didn't really talk about that one today.

Honestly, I kinda would love to just change one thing at a time, if I
got my way - I think that way it will be better to judge its effectiveness.

Monty