Open Stack

>
>
> > I propose there might be benefit to basing eligibility for the committee
> > based on representative constituencies, at least for some subset of the
> > seats.
>
> Could you expand on that ?


For example, some subset of seats might be designated as representing
'users' with different eligibility and voting requirements. That's the one
that seems obvious, but there are a few others that might be considered
beyond the 'Technical Community' at large.

In every organization I've been in, whenever revocation had to be
> confirmed by a committee, there were no revocation happening. I want TC
> members to be available for their role. If someone's agenda is too full
> to commit to it, they should probably reconsider running for election.
>
> Maybe having the ability to designate a proxy to substitute for you
> would efficiently limit the arbitrary aspect. I don't think we should
> allow write-in votes, since everything is in the discussion that happens
> just before the vote.


This seems to be an issue you have past frustration with. I can see there
being potential issues with politics depending on committees, but I'd like
something that provides sensible outcomes when good faith efforts are made.
If we allow temporary proxies, 3 of 5 seems more reasonable.

If motions have been discussed on the mailing list, I'm not sure how
'everything' would be in the discussion before a vote. There will certainly
be times when new information or interpretation will change a perspective,
but as often as not, positions will likely be researched and decided before
the meeting, whether write ins are allowed or not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20120221/3590bb83/attachment-0003.html>