Open Stack

Tim,

Todd may have a more complete answer. But, I thought I would respond with my understanding of things.

The last discussion we had revolved around the need to get a legally sufficient description of either STV or Condorcet that the board could consider. I would assume, that since we have not seen an update otherwise, that work did not reach a state where it could be considered. Given that, it seems we have missed any change of considering a change during this voting cycle.

It would be useful to get an update to understand if the work didn’t finish because we just couldn’t confidently overcome the legal concerns or if we just need others to pick up the ball on writing the process descriptions. If it is the latter, I would offer to help.

Troy

On Jan 6, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:

>  
> Todd,
>  
> What is the plan for the bylaws question on the election process ?
>  
> I am not aware of a decision regarding the selection of a method or the contents of the information pack for the electorate. I also have not seen a conclusion from the board or the election committee that the question would not be asked in the individual membership elections.
>  
> Thanks for the clarification on the current status.
>  
> Tim
>  
> From: Tim Bell 
> Sent: 19 December 2013 13:05
> To: 'Todd Moore'; elections-committee at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: RE: [Elections-committee] Thank you and Actions
>  
>  
> Todd,
>  
> Are we due to discuss the bylaws change proposal ? My understanding on the note below is that we would need one of the options to be selected by the board, followed by a vote of 2/3 majority in support of the option.
>  
> Tim
>  
> From: Todd Moore [mailto:tmmoore at us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 07 November 2013 17:40
> To: elections-committee at lists.openstack.org; foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: [Elections-committee] Thank you and Actions
>  
> Election Committee and Board Members,
> 
> Thank you for attending and supporting the Town Hall meeting on the Election Process.  Special thanks to Simon, Mark and Monty for getting up in front of our audience.  
> 
> Turn out was light for the Town Hall session.  At the peak I counted 38, with 8 of those were board members.  The audience was mostly composed of the individuals that have been commenting on the mailing lists.  This suggests that we have much work to do to reach and educate the electorate.  We received feedback that follow up education via IRC chat sessions would be a good measure.  The attendees also felt that we should be bringing forward a single suggestion to be voted on as a bylaws change as opposed to a menu of options.  If we accept this feedback, the board will need to make a selection and not offer a slate of options.  
> 
> Some committee members have suggested that maybe we are trying to move too fast.   To move this along, 2/3 of the board will need to approve a modification, and then a majority vote on a turn out of 25% of the membership to approve it.  We possibly need to first address the voter participation level necessary to pass a bylaws change.  We certainly need to do more education and discussion with the members and gauge interest in the topic.  We need to arrange the IRC discussions over the next several weeks.  I would welcome recommendations on times and dates where board members could also participate.
> 
> Thanks again.  
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foundation-board mailing list
> Foundation-board at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/foundation-board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20140106/1ac1b479/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20140106/1ac1b479/attachment-0001.pgp>