On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:51:43PM +0100, Tavmjong Bah wrote:
On Sat, 2014-11-08 at 21:56 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 06:59:21PM +0100, Johan Engelen wrote:
Hi Bryce, Thanks for splitting the discussion.
We discussed a similar voting-count-system at the GSoC summit, but I think we decided for something stronger (the meetings). But now when I read your mail, I think what you propose is very good, because it tackles exactly the problem we want to fix.
Did the new FSA get finalized? If not, can you ask them to include a provision to achieve this? If it did, then perhaps we should vote on it.
No, the FSA did not get finalized. We need to get back to them on the vote-counting system.
Rather than meeting attendance, I think voting history would be a better objective mechanism. Say, out of the past N months if you cast votes in fewer than X% of the referendums. Where N is like 3 or 6 months, and X is like 5 or 10. My thinking is that while meeting attendance is really just a means to an end, but voting is the fundamental reason we were elected to these seats.
Fine with me.
In 2014 we have voted on:
13 Jan: Developer Education (Tav, Ted, and MentalGuy did not vote.) 19 Feb: Tav attending LGM and Leipzig SVG WG meetings. (Tav recused, MentalGuy did not vote.) 19 Feb: Developer attendance at LGM (Tav and MentalGuy did not vote.) 23 Feb: Join OIN Network (Ted and MentalGuy did not vote.) 24 Feb: Moving email list to Launchpad (Bryce, Tav, MentalGuy did not vote) 05 May: Fund raising (MentalGuy did not vote.) 15 Jun: GSoC Mentor's meeting (Jon and MentalGuy did not vote.) 26 Jul: Tav attending Santa Clara SVG WG meeting (Tav recused, Bryce and MentalGuy did not vote.). 26 Jul: Tav attending London SVG WG meeting and The Graphical Web Conf. (Tav recused, Bryce and MentalGuy did not vote.) 14 Aug: Trademark (MentalGuy did not vote.) 11 Oct: Pre-approving projects (MentalGuy did not vote.)
We had eleven votes
Missing votes: MentalGuy: 11, Bryce: 3, Ted: 2, Tav: 2, Jon: 1.
I know the votes I missed were either conflict of interest (Developer Education)
Good point. For purposes of activity, recuse should count as voted.
or the decision had already been made (Moving email to LaunchPad).
For that particular vote my gut said we needed consensus. Even though we had a majority approval, I've not moved forward on it because I think we should all be in agreement on the plan first. The sense I get is that moving the list is ok, but maybe we can find something better than launchpad to move to.
In retrospect, I think that even if there are enough votes to decide a referendum, board members who haven't voted should for the public record still cast their vote or explicitly note the conflict of interest.
Agreed, that sounds like a good approach.
Given this data, I propose:
If a person misses three or more votes in a row where multiple votes within one calendar month are counted as one vote, their board position is vacated.
(The "multiple votes within one calendar month are counted as one vote" is to avoid a situation where a board member are removed if they are on vacation for a couple of weeks during which multiple votes take place.)
Sounds good. The less frequent our votes are, the more important to participate in some of them. Where we're having tons of votes we don't expect you to vote so religiously.
It would be nice to have a simpler statement that's easier to remember (like, "Vote at least once every 3 months"), but as a rule it seems fair and relatively easy to verify.
Bryce