Open Stack

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/elections-committee/attachments/20131011/27cf8118/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20131011/27cf8118/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- 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/20131011/27cf8118/attachment-0003.gif>