Open Stack

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eoghan Glynn <eglynn at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> > > > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So there
> > > > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other
> > > > activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd actually
> > > > be quite interested to see the turnout numbers with voters who
> > > > missed the last two elections prior to this one filtered out.
> > >
> > > Well, the base electorate for the TC are active contributors with
> > > patches landed to official projects within the past year, so these
> > > are devs getting their code merged but not interested in voting.
> > > This is somewhat different from (though potentially related to) the
> > > "dead weight" foundation membership on the rolls for board
> > > elections.
> > >
> > > Also, foundation members who have not voted in two board elections
> > > are being removed from the membership now, from what I understand
> > > (we just needed to get to the point where we had two years worth of
> > > board elections in the first place).
> >
> > Thanks, I lost my mind here and confused the board with the TC.
> >
> > So then my next question is, of those who did not vote, how many are
> > from under-represented companies? A higher percentage there might point
> > to disenfranchisement.
>
> Well, that we don't know, because the ballots are anonymized.
>
> So we can only make a stab at detecting partisan voting patterns, in
> the form a strict preference for candidates from one company over all
> others, but we've no way of knowing whether voters from those same
> companies actually cast the ballots in question.
>
>
I'd love to see a rule that says you can't vote for people from your own
company.
That would turn things around :-)

-A



> ... i.e. from these data, the conclusion that the preferred pairs of
> candidates were just more popular across-the-board would be equally
> valid.
>
> Conversely, we've no way of knowing if the voters employed by those
> "under-represented companies" you mention had a higher or lower turnout
> than the average.
>
> If there is a concern about balanced representation, then the biggest
> single change we could make to address this, IMO, would be to contest
> all TC seats at all elections.
>
> Staggered terms optimize for continuity, but by amplifying the majority
> voice (if such a thing exists in our case), they tend to pessimize for
> balanced representation.
>
> Cheers,
> Eoghan
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141030/7a9d4a87/attachment.html>