Open Stack

On 30/10/2014 11:22, Angus Salkeld wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eoghan Glynn <eglynn at redhat.com
> <mailto: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 think that hell would freeze over before that happens...

Maish
>  
>
>     ... 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
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-- 
Maish Saidel-Keesing

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141030/b640ab75/attachment.html>