Open Stack

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2013-06-06 12:24:13 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> [...]
>> Final detail would be how to run the transition from the current
>> TC. We currently have 2 people recently-elected to a one-year term
>> and 13 people elected for a six-month term[3]. As a transition,
>> the idea would be to elect in the Fall 2013 election 9 people (5
>> one-year member and 4 six-month members) in the case of a
>> 11-member committee, or 11 people (6 one-year member and 5
>> six-month members) in the case of a 13-member committee. The next
>> election in Spring would then see the normal renewal of 6 (over
>> 11) or 7 (over 13) members.
> 
> I'm a little curious how the Fall 2013 election will be organized
> with 9 directly-elected seats when 5 are for a year and 4 are only
> for six months. Are there two concurrent elections held for the
> different term lengths and nominees pick to run in one election or
> the other? Or is there a 9-seat election where the 5 scoring highest
> get the one-year seats and those with fewer votes get the remaining
> six-month seats? Something else entirely?

Condorcet and our tie-breaking rules[1] give us a final ranking. The
candidates ranking 1-5 would get the one-year seats, and those ranking
6-9 would get 6-month seats. This is how we operated the transition from
PPB to TC when the Foundation was established, and also how we handled
Russell's succession at the last election[2].

[1] http://wiki.openstack.org/Governance/TieBreaking
[2]
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TC_Elections_Spring_2013#Elected_positions

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)