Open Stack

My personal opinion, speaking as a non-candidate, is that it's very likely
true name recognition plays a role. In fact if I was to vote I would do so
and probably vote for Monty or Doug cause I like how they operate and I'm
familiar with them. And if I don't like someone, I won't vote for them.
Selection decisions are influenced by human nature and as such we might
want to at least consider whether name recognition is important or not
versus the actual positions candidates hold or the experience they bring to
the table.

I heard (can't recall who it was) someone say they like names being
attached to positions because they lean towards voting for people who
they've seen or know can get the work done. Interestingly, work as a PTL is
*much* different than the work as a TC member. One question I've often
asked myself is about the role of the TC itself is what *should* these
dudes and dudettes be focusing on? If it's governance, getting out code is
miles apart from working through and making evangelizing decisions.
Experience and approach should, I feel, take utmost precedence over
community popularity. it should if we want a stronger TC anyway.

Strangely, I'll bet some of the top names voted in would continue to be
voted in without a name being attached because they are good at what they
do and don't need to rely on name recognition to draw votes.

I support the blind voting idea personally. Just my two cents.

//adam




*Adam Lawson*

Principal Architect, CEO
Office: +1-916-794-5706

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info> wrote:

> On 2016-10-11 02:35 PM, Thiago da Silva wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/2016 01:21 PM, Anita Kuno wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-10-11 12:57 PM, Thiago da Silva wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2016 12:00 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Anita Kuno <anteaya at anteaya.info> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just in case folks care, now is the best time to discuss our election
>>>>>> process and suggest options or changes for the next round of elections. I'm
>>>>>> not adverse to discussing it I just think the best time for doing so is
>>>>>> from the time the last election is over up to milestone one. Then we have
>>>>>> lots of time for ideas and debate and any suggestions, if accepted, have
>>>>>> time to be implemented and communicated so the process is fair for all,
>>>>>> candidates and electorate.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>> During the election is a wonderful time for posing questions to
>>>>>> candidates in order to clarify their position or stance such that the
>>>>>> electorate can make an informed choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>> To me, that’s the crux: “during the election”. When exactly should
>>>>> that be? Candidates can (and do) declare up to the very last minute of the
>>>>> nomination window, and ballots go out immediately after that, and voting
>>>>> starts. There really needs to be a period when a) we know who all the
>>>>> candidates are, and b) voting has not yet begun. I would like to see that
>>>>> period be created so that the kind of question/answer/clarify process you
>>>>> mention can happen.
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> Just to add on to that, it would also be nice to have a better place
>>>> for the questions/answers to be stored.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you a suggestion for where you would like to see them?
>>>
>>> Also regardless of what is formally set up, anyone can ask questions via
>>> the mailing list, that option has been used every election that I have
>>> witnessed, I don't see that changing. I don't think it is reasonable to ask
>>> officials to curate mailing list posts. I think what we are discussing is
>>> something in addition to mailing list discussions. I don't think anything
>>> ever would (or should) replace what comes up on the mailing list.
>>>
>> Anita,
>>
>> Agree that the mailing list is irreplaceable, a lot of of the discussion
>> would continue to happen here. I also don't think asking anyone to curate
>> the answers is scalable.
>>
>
> Great, we agree.
>
>
>> A *suggestion* would be to come up with a set of questions prior to
>> nomination so that candidates could answer in their self-nomination. Of
>> course, how we would come up with those questions is then another issue.
>> Maybe the questions could even be proposed to the election repo[0],
>> starting with an initial set of questions that are then added on by others
>> in the community ??? I'm trying to come up with a way to repeat what you
>> provided in the '14 election without the burden...
>>
>> Thiago
>>
>> [0] - https://github.com/openstack/election/tree/master/candidates
>> /ocata/TC
>>
>
> I think the format would be up to whomever administrates it since they
> would have to do the work, accept the stress and pressure and be answerable
> to the community for the choices they make. That is what worked best for me.
>
> Thanks Thiago,
> Anita.
>
>
>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anita.
>>>
>>> During last week there was a ton of great discussion, but when it came
>>>> to voting time (towards end of the week) it was difficult/time consuming to
>>>> find what each person had said.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Ed Leafe
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20161011/545e7a69/attachment.html>