XSF Discussion - 2011-10-12

MiGri, I'm a little annoyed at the lack of Board candidates. In part, because I'd have liked to have seen more people interested, but mostly because I'd rather not get in because there were no other options.

I considered to candidate. But I guess my english language skills are not so good to manage a board job. ;-)

and I just became a father the seconmd time, so I thought it would better to concentrate on this job ;)

board meeting in 15?

yup, iCal says so

nothing on the agenda but i'm sure the current voting issue should be

guess so :)

meeting notes here? http://typewith.me/xsf

yes

voting issues?

tho, if it's only the two of us it will be a short meeting

heh

Will is around ...

the member voting problem that is being talked about on the mailing list

ah

ok. that issue

shut up Dave

heh

(I would second alex idea of canceling the current vote and restart voting after a this week

I think for the candidate that didn't have a wiki account ... if he did send off an E-mail with the request to get one in time, re-open the voting next week

you mean re-open applications

Assuming you mean completely reboot, then that's an argument that can be made, yes.

Florian: good point

And this is what I said on-list :p

it was wasn't it - you're going to miss these sharp interventions ;-)

Kev: Yes.

3 present - going to give it a couple of more minutes

just ping jack

just pinged jack

*pinged (for those not supporting message editing)

Those not supporting message editing would see the message twice.

(First incorrect, then correct)

ah, interesting

Those not supporting message editing would see the message twice.

Shut up Dave

Kev: So you don't think we should restart the council votes?

Will: you guys should have those stress balls ... they can be thrown at annoyances :)

Florian, He has one.

If we restart Board, we should restart Council, probably.

But not because Waqas missed the period, just because we should reboot everything.

Kev: I think for simplicity reasons, yes

hmm

I think it'd be terribly hard to restart one without the other.

agree

indeed

Mostly because of the way voting works.

do we have a quorum at the moment?

it's 3 here / 3 absent ... including Peter

You do.

right ... so ED doesn't count?

Peter's not on Board.

right

Neither am I, but feel free to count me if it's a free for all.

yea, 3 of 5 == quorum

so, should we re-open applications til sunday?

and then re-run voting from next week?

I'm +1 to full reset of voting

I think the consensus would be easier to judge if we knew the details of the Mystery Board Candidate.

Not 'full reset' in the sense of needing to reapply if you already have, I hope.

But I'm opposed to restarting if it's just a case of people not getting stuff done on time.

I am aswell ...

organising a timely application is something a potential board or council member should be able to do

but it seems that Alex got the E-mail for the wiki account in time?

Oh, did he say that?

I've not seen that mail yet.

I don't know... I thought you said that

I didn't.

yea, that's unknown as to why the board applicant didn't get a wiki account in time

ah ... Will: it was wasn't it - you're going to miss these sharp interventions ;-)

if it's just because they forgot, then that's their problem and we just continue on

@17:01

I said that unless Alex had the mail in plenty of time and it's Alex's Internet access's fault, it shouldn't be restarted.

Right. I don't see Alex online, otherwise I'd ask him.

right

e.g. I don't think Alex getting a mail at 11pm on Sunday would count either.

I agree ...

BTW, the details on how people should get wiki accounts are woefully unclear, IMHO.

"To obtain an account on this wiki, ask someone in the jdev@conference.jabber.org chatroom for help "

The only instructions I see are "ask in jdev", which can't be right.

Yes, we should restore the old instructions, which used to be 'contact one of these people'.

Although that was back in the jabber.org days.

ok, so should we say ... if the E-mail was received in time (Sunday afternoon) for the mystery board candidate, we reset the voting

else ... they're valid?

Sunday afternoon's quite late, too.

yup

Well - has Alex actually added Waqas to the voting already?

it's not that late

I ask because if he has, then it seems a moot point - any votes cast since are bogus, and we'll probably need to restart the election anyway.

I would volunteer for wiki user administration if you need another admin...

hmm

this is going to be messy

I note that Waqs *is* now on the list of candidates on the Wiki itself.

dwd: he wrote he added him

MiGri, In the original mail?

I don't think that implies we have to restart everything.

"I have added Waqas to the memberbot configuration and I also add the 5th board candidate when his application page is done."

"I have added Waqas to the memberbot configuration and I also add the 5th board candidate when his application page is done."

It means voting has to be restarted without waqas, or everything needs to be restarted with waqas and Board Guy.

right

I'll send off an E-mail to Alex then, asking him about the mystery guy

Kev, Yes, that's true; it implies that voting is blown, but not applications.

and then we'll see if we restart voting without Waqas or re-open applications and then restart voting with both

waqas should not be added even if voting is reset IMO

right, if it's reset, he'll be removed

forgetting to link (i.e. follow instructions) is not our issue

kev: or everything has to be restartet with waqas and without the board candidate (if it was his fault at all)?

bear: I disagree entirely.

if it's restarted, the applications are open

bear: I think either we re-open applications, and anyone can apply, or we don't and no-one extra can.

but that doesn't factor in that waqas has been added mid-vote

Kev: indeed. But voting needs to be reset as he was added mid vote

we need to consider two kinds of "reset"

Florian: Yes.

bear, Right, you mean that if voting alone is restarted, then Waqas should be treated as not having applied.

Right, that's what I said some minutes ago.

so yeah: 1. Reset: Resetting votes, no waqas / no mystery board member 2. Repeat: Re-Opening applications until next Sunday, then restarting voting.

whichone we choose depends on what time the mystery board guy sent a mail

Yep.

great. Just firing off a mail to Alex

and then the board will decided probably tomorrow what will be done

Does that imply the Board meets again tomorrow?

I think it should be a measure of the consensus of the membership, really.

I'd say E-mail is enough

hmm. do you really see the case of waqas (who just forgot to set a link) and the board guy the same way?

Otherwise it implies this Board gets to decide who applies for next Board, which is a bit shakey.

MiGri: No, no-one has suggested that, I think.

I.e. whether it's a reset or a repeat is entirely dependent upon Board guy, not on Waqas.

Kev: Flo just gave 2 possibilities, reset or repeat

But if applications *are* reopened so Board Guy can apply, it's only reasonable for anyone to be able to.

right

so either 1) Only people who were in on time 2) Anyone who get in an application by (e.g.) next Sunday.

Kev, I certainly don't think the Board can make a decision entirely without reference to the membership; but I think final interpretation of the bylaws needs to be somewhere, and short of polling the membership, the board needs to make the final decision.

ah. ok. so waqas application is accepted?

MiGri: No, only if (2).

Kev: indeed.

but he was on ti mr

timee

MiGri, No, he wasn't.

MiGri: He wasn't.

not on the application page.

If he was, he would have been in the voting from the start.

hmm

Kev, Right.

alex wrote he was

see the instructions: If you are interested in running for Board or Council, please add a wiki page about your candidacy to one or both of the following sections by the close of business on October 9, 2011.

Alex didn't.

http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board_and_Council_Elections_2011

there was just a link missing

Alex wrote that he'd written his application, but not submitted it.

MiGri, No link, no application.

"He created his application page in time"

hmm

MiGri: Yes, but that just means he wrote his application.

dwd: indeed. The Wiki history is there with accurate times

MiGri, Right, but he didn't add it to one or both of those sections.

It's submitting it (putting your name on the list of applicants) that matters.

right

so you see the cases of waqas and the board guy the same way ?

No.

Waqas was late, and can only apply if we re-open applications.

Board guy Florian's mailed Alex to ask if he was on time, but Alex didn't give him an account, or if he was late.

ah. ok...

i see

ok, is there anything else to discuss?

If Alex wasn't able to give him an account, but he was on time in asking, it's probably reasonable to let him apply. I.e. if it's the XSF's fault rather than his own.

Kev: right

bear: no, we wait for alex to reply and then decide (by email)

bear: nope, I think we're good

Will: Having updated members@ on the situation.

But if we let him apply, then I think reopening applications and discarding voting is the only sensible route.

dwd: Indood.

I'll post to the board list as soon as I have an answer from Alex

Kev: yes

ok, coolness - thanks all

Florian: Members list.

Thanks Florian

No, Board list.

cool ... AOB?

Florian, Remember that most members can't read the board list.

Kev: Board list

Florian, And this absolutely MUST be discussed openly.

The Board doesn't have authority to make the decision without reference to the membership.

are you sure?

Unless you can show otherwise.

the thing ... the members can't really vote on this unless we run another vote

which will put this off for the next ... who knows how long

the case was discussed on the member list so it would be nice if you will go on there

Florian: It's sufficient to gain rough consensus, I believe.

we'd have to run a vote on whether to run another vote

We could put that to a vote?

Will: right .... ridiculous

But the worst thing would be for Board to decide on the future of Board, in disagreement with the membership.

true, but I think we've got a fair solution

Florian: Which is why it should be presented to the membership.

the circumstances of votes should be open to all members...

the membership have the option of voting down any board candidate who they think have exceeded their mandate

if you applied properly, you're on the ballot

this is when it is just easier to default to open - given that i don't see a reason to have it board list only

But I don't think the Board's remit includes final interpretation of the bylaws. So I think you give a proposal to the membership, and let consensus carry, or if there's strong disagreement, then we have to have a vote.

dwd: Right.

so what's a consensus then?

I count 15 E-mails on the proxy voting mail

That said, if the Board feel that they need to discuss in camera prior to producing a proposal, I could live with that.

so, we're going to wait for the email, then tell the membership, then ask the membership to vote on if the vote should be reopened or reset.

?

Will: Just ask membership if there's disagreement on the proposal, I think.

Will, I think it'll be fairly clear if there needs to be a vote. I doubt there will need to be.

If there is significant disagreement, a vote is needed, but it seems unlikely.

Kev: and what hurlde are you setting for valid disagreement; one vite, two votes, three votes ....?

I just want to avoid opening up another vote to decide if we should vote or not

Florian: That would be inconvenient, but above all else the process should be open and fair.

Will: indeed. Looking at the participation on the thread on the mailinglist at the moment, we're far off the majority of members

and that's just discussing the issue

the only thing that is being discussed (and in our range of discussion) is when the email for the mystery board member arrived

bear: Right. I see no reason not to make this public.

the waqas item was a mistake by Alex, IMO, and is just making things messier but not a point of discussion

bear: Also right.

Where 'right' means 'matching my opinion'.

Obviously :)

we just need to find out from Alex what happened - that can be by private mail but anything/everything else needs to be in the member list

Kev, I see strong reasons to make it public - we need to ensure that the membership have the information needed to evaluate the decision.

Will, The trouble is that the Board needs to ensure that nobody in the membership (in particular the candidates) later complains that the vote was unfair.

right ...

so ... how about this

when the board has an answer from Alex

we'll post the proposal and reasoning to the members

dwd: that sounds very reasonable, have you considered standing for bo ..... oh hang on

saying, this is what we'll do ... if you feel it's unfair, complain by Sunday

done

Florian: Yes, that's entirely fine for me if 'reasoning' includes the rough details of the failed application.

Which I assume it does :)

Will, That's why I'm here, so my potential voters have a chance to see how honest and reasonable I am.

Kev, Right - needn't include the name of the Mystery Board Guy, of course.

bear: This is the application list that already has dwd on it?

Because that should be a short hack.

so yeah ... the board will inform the members tomorrow on it's decision on what to do

yes - that's how good my hacking skills are

Hey, I just hacked google.com. I've turned it into a search engine.

*best* *hacker* *evar*

you never see me or what I do

ok, I need to run - anything that we need to add or discuss?

right ... next ... AOB?

not here

florian - can you give the minutes a review - i'll post them to the list after lunch

will do

cools

thanks all ... and dwd

and MiGri