Open Stack

> > 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?
> 

My understanding from the discussions is that we would present the board with the options. The board would choose it's preference and then propose a single by-laws change to the members.  However, if we choose the option of members voting in January (with the individual elections), we should explain the options and proposal to a town hall meeting at the summit.

> 
> Is running a vote on changing the affiliation limits off the table?
> 

I'd propose to review this in the discussion on Tuesday as to what motions to propose at the board meeting on Friday. 

My personal view is that we would lose a significant diversity and limit the representatives for the individual members if we were to restrict the board to one per affiliation. However, I'm also happy to campaign for this point of view in a membership vote but it is a lot to explain all at once.

Tim