Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

You will note from my candidacy statement that I have not run for Council, and have only run for Board with the understanding that I would be little more than a passive participant for the first 5 to 6 months of the term. I've been rather blunt about that... as I have been with many things in the past. I suspect both will likely land me a solid 6th place (in a 5 person race...)

Even if I am elected, there will be 4 other Board members to do the heavier lifting. This coming term, like the one just past, is not a one man show. I have done several highly visible things, and been active on TMO and meetings. But other Council members have done quite a bit of work on behind the scenes items to get things where they are. This has been a real team effort, which I will actually miss, but I must break from it in order to remain sane (and employed) over the next few months.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with "rehashing"? The updates to the last cycle were quite minor, and there have been no major changes proposed that I'm aware of. The bylaws must be approved and established at the first meeting of the Board, for legality sake. That must happen regardless of who gets elected. Right now, minus a few small typographical issues (capitalizations mainly), it's pretty much ready to go, over a week ahead of time. :rolleyes:

As for candidates running for both positions... That is their prerogative, and I can not answer for them. To be honest, I suspected this would happen, but dealing with it in this way is still the best route, IMHO. It buys us at least 6 more months to see how things work out, and decide if we want to simply blend the two jobs together permanently. If so, great, if not, great. But that's something the community can decide later, when matters are less urgent. ;)

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Sure, that can be done. But it's the Board members who decide that (through the bylaws).


Yes, we have this odd situation that each of the 3 apparent council members are also candidates for the nonprofit Board. Personally, don't see much of a value now of keeping council as part of the nonprofit with so much overlap. The problems we have are resources and volunteers and time and money, not the number and variety of chairs at the nonprofit for people to sit in. Having different positions with different titles doesn't mean much if much of the same people are doing the work irregardless.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Time constrains are always worrying and every one of us has suffered, more or less, periods of disconnection due to personal issues or work load.

I'm having myself a few rough weeks at work and right now I'm not very active. That's why it's important to have enough volunteers for both groups, so we can share efforts and tasks.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

in the line of thought of Rob, why not drop all the Council versus Board discussion and just focus on the Community, whatever instance governing it being but a tool to lead it?

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Those not following it should read this thread for an interesting twist on the election.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

After considerable debate on the topic, the following has been decided by the Council, on a 3 to 1 vote:

Once someone has stood for nomination, they can not be removed from the ballot. They may step down from a position once elected, and/or make their stance clear before the election so others may choose not vote for them.

While I personally disagree with this decision, it leads us to the following path:

There are 3 nominated candidates for Council. This means those involved are promoted to Council without the need for election, since each would receive at least one vote, and there are 3 positions for 3 candidates.

This also means there are 6 nominated candidates for Board, of which 5 will be elected via a standard election. That election is being setup now, and should start in about 4 hours. If the election is not available before 00:00UTC, the voting will be extended by 24 hours to ensure all participants have at least 7 days in which to vote.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

you sure you need us to vote ?!? :rolleyes:

EDIT: this isn't directed at you personally, Woody, obviously...

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

I also agree with that. Throwing the hat into the ring is just as important as not throwing it. The people that nominate themselves should accept all responsibility of stepping down, just as the people who decided not to nominate can't change their mind later and hop in. It's only fair.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

While this issue is a blind spot in the existing rules, I'm not convinced the council has the power to decide it without a community referendum. Even so,

Brilliant, force power onto someone who says he doesn't want it, only yesterday tried to hold the elections hostage, and who in that very same meeting said:

Pardon me, but have you guys lost your minds?!

Well, since they bylaws haven't been finalised yet, what it means for the board is technically undefined.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Only fair? The two are rather different situations. If a person tries to jump in after nomination period closes (regardless of whether you're referring to me or not), then you could make an argument that they're abusing the system (my understanding is that the nominate/vote week gap is there so that everyone has time to contemplate the candidates, so you could argue the late-nominee is depriving the electorate of their ability to contemplate their nomination as well as they could those of the other candidates). If a candidate drops out, the voters are probably not going to have to change much, other than shift in the candidates that they liked less than the one that dropped out.

However, what 'fairness', exactly, does preventing someone from dropping out of a race, produce? It'll probably have a chilling effect on nominations, or acceptances thereof, because now god forbid your circumstances change and you can no longer run. But that will be minor.

The real problem, however, is that it's detrimental to the community AND the candidates. Now if candidate X wishes to withdraw, you have candidates Y and Z who are the only 'real' candidates, only not everyone /sees/ the stated intent of X to drop out of the race - so when time comes to vote, there will be vote leaching by the 'dud' candidate(s) from the 'live' candidate(s). Voters will be voting for candidates that they think are running, but who really have, for all intents and purposes, left.

(And in the extreme case that you have multiple candidates who decide they don't want to run anymore, you could get a council that was voted on as a 5 person council, but which suddenly becomes a 2 person council as soon as elections are over, because 3 of the elected candidates decided to drop out, but officially weren't removable from the list, until all the votes have happened.)