Open Stack

Now sending with the right email address.

On Aug 4, 2016 5:08 PM, "Flavio Percoco" <fpercoco at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Aug 4, 2016 5:00 PM, "Ed Leafe" <ed at leafe.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 4, 2016, at 8:35 AM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> I believe the board has an informal replacement policy of looking
> back at the last election and taking the next person down the list, don’t
> they? That seems reasonable for us, too. In this case, since Morgan is
> going to serve until the election, we should select the 7th from those
> results to serve a half term. I think this is Thierry’s option 2, isn’t it?
> > >
> > > Yeah, that sounds like Thierry's option #2. My point is, that I'd
> rather have
> > > someone serving for the entire year than half period. I agree this can
> happen
> > > even in the middle of the cycle.
> >
> > Stepping outside of the OpenStack world for a minute, in general when a
> vacancy occurs in an elected position, there are procedures for filling
> that vacancy laid out in advance. They fall into two main groups:
> >
> > 1) a special election is held, with the winner filling the vacancy until
> the remainder of the term
> > 2) someone is appointed by a higher-level official to fill that vacancy
> for the remainder of the term
> >
> > I’ve never heard of anything like amending the
> laws/constitution/governance to handle this situation. It’s a fact of life
> that people can’t always fulfill their terms, so any solution we propose
> should be done with the idea of solving the issue for any similar future
> case.
> >
>
> FWIW, I believe this is the first time this happens in the TC (could be
> wrong) and it'd be a good moment for coming up with a way to handle this in
> the future without having to amend the charter.
>
> > If we choose #1, that’s pretty straightforward, but involves a lot of
> work. Thierry proposed something closer to #2, where the TC appoints the
> next-highest vote getter in the previous election to take over the vacant
> position for the remainder of the term. There really is no way to address
> Flavio’s concern with a new TC member only having a few months to make an
> impact. That’s life, and it isn’t ideal, but it is what it is.
>
> Just to be clear, one of the reasons I'm not happy with #2 is that
> time/commitment might have changed for candidates that lost the election
> too.  A fresh election sound better to me.
>
> > Personally, I think some variation of #2 is best - it seems like
> overkill to run an entire nomination/voting cycle for a single seat for an
> abbreviated term. But whatever is decided, please make it part of
> governance so that the next time a situation like this comes up, we know
> how it will be handled.
>
> Thanks :D
> Flavio
>
> P.S: would probably be better to keep discussing this on the review.
> Sounds like a better place and some folks are not aubscribed to this ML.
>
> >
> > -- Ed Leafe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-TC mailing list
> > OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20160804/ca8da3c2/attachment.html>