Open Stack

I was thinking after reading all this; besides modifying the number of
required patches, perhaps we could try a blind election; candidate names
are removed so ballots have to be cast based on the merit of each
candidate's responses to the questions and/or ideas - which I think
effectively eliminates the possibility of partisan voting based name
recognition or based on the fact they are a well-known as PTL for a
specific project i.e. nothing to do with TC but their prominence within the
development hierarchy.

Or something along those lines. If we aren't electing names, might as well
cast ballots that eliminates them form the equation. ; ) Might be another
'when hell freezes over' suggestion but I thought I'd at least throw it out
there for discussion.

Mahalo,
Adam


*Adam Lawson*

AQORN, Inc.
427 North Tatnall Street
Ste. 58461
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-2230
Toll-free: (844) 4-AQORN-NOW ext. 101
International: +1 302-387-4660
Direct: +1 916-246-2072


On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> wrote:

> Excerpts from Thierry Carrez's message of 2014-10-30 04:16:48 -0700:
> > Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> > >>> I haven't seen the customary number-crunching on the recent TC
> election,
> > >>> so I quickly ran the numbers myself.
> >
> > Haven't been able to run my analysis yet. I should be able to a few
> > weeks after summit :)
> >
> > In complement to the "partisan analysis" you ran, one interesting
> > analysis is to see how much the results would be different if we enable
> > the "proportional vote" option in CIVS (which is designed to deter block
> > voting). I'll do that one.
> >
> > >>> The turnout rate continues to decline, in this case from 29.7% to
> 26.7%.
> > >>>
> > >>> Here's how the participation rates have shaped up since the first
> TC2.0
> > >>> election:
> > >>>
> > >>> Election | Electorate | Voted | Turnout | Change
> > >>> ------------------------------------------------
> > >>> 10/2013  | 1106       | 342   | 30.9%   | -8.0%
> > >>> 04/2014  | 1510       | 448   | 29.7%   | -4.1%
> > >>> 10/2014  | 1892       | 506   | 26.7%   | -9.9%
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Overall percentage of the electorate voting is declining, but absolute
> > >> numbers of voters has increased. And in fact, the electorate has
> grown more
> > >> than the turnout has declined.
> > >
> > > True that, but AFAIK the generally accepted metric on participation
> rates
> > > in elections is turnout as opposed to absolute voter numbers.
> >
> > It's the generally-accepted metric in classic elections, which have a
> > slow-growing electorate.
> >
> > I agree that a decline in global participation is not a good trend, but
> > in our case I think it's more an artifact of our long tail of small
> > contributors than true decline in interest in existing voters.
> >
> > What is *is* showing is that we grow the number of people who care about
> > OpenStack governance at a smaller rate (+12%) than we grow raw
> > contributors (+25%).
>
> It may be worth noting that we are also doing things _right_ if the TC
> isn't having to do much that impacts the broad base of ATCs.
>
> Decentralizing things in the way we've been looking at lately, would
> mean there is less involvement by the TC in ATCs' business. That would
> then lead to less familiarity with the candidates and incumbents, and
> indeed less interest in the election process.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141030/475ad0a3/attachment.html>