Today is the last day of Nomination period to FESCo in Autumn 2017 elections. Currently (Dec 4th @ 9:00 UTC) we have only 5 nominees to take 5 open seats in FESCo. The FESCo election policy declares the following rules:
With regards to the upcoming Christmas period, which is vacations/holidays period, I would like to ask the Fedora Council for an exception from the rules above and approval of the following approach:
I would like to ask all the Council members to vote in this ticket. Due to urgency of this ticket I would apply lazy consensus with deadline set on Dec 4th @ 23:59:59.
I am a bit opposed to just consider all nominees as elected, whatever the body would be. Can we rather extend the nomination period for three days and send out a last reminder, asking people to think about contributors who would make a good job? Then, instead of wanting open seats + 25% (which in the case of FESCo would be 7 nominees), we could just go for elections if we have at least "open seats + 1".
Considering that 90% of the votes get in in the first days, we could (if we extend the nomination period for other 3 days) keep the end of the voting period at dec 18th and announce the results the day after.
I'm in favor of robyduck's proposal. We also only have candidates equal to the number of seats for Council, and Mindshare has 3 for 2 seats.
I am in favor of what @robyduck has proposed with the request that if we don't get any more candidates we move forward and confirm the 5 we have. I didn't see that in the proposal.
Works for me.
Erm... FESCo has an election policy clearly documented. Why would the Council override that? I don't agree we should change the approach to their election without discussing with the community and FESCo and revising their policy first.
I believe we are following the policy. Do you have something specific on your mind, you think we do not follow ?
Erm... FESCo has an election policy clearly documented. Why would the Council override that? I don't agree we should change the approach to their election without discussing with the community and FESCo and revising their policy first. I believe we are following the policy. Do you have something specific on your mind, you think we do not follow ?
The proposal everyone else agreed to was to change the minimum number of required candidates from open + 25% to "open +1". That differs from existing policy.
The proposal was to extend the nomination period for other 3 days and then go for open seats + 1, which is aligned with the policy and that is what I did.
Hm. Perhaps I misread what @robyduck was suggesting. I thought both the change on open seats was suggested irrespective of the delay. Either way, too late now. We should probably close this.
In any case, there are now 7 candidates.
(And, maybe I misread the above. I didn't mean to override FESCo --- I'm just in favor of delaying to get a meaningful number of candidates.)
5 of whom should be disqualified because they didn't have their Questionnaires ready to be published by Dec 4th @ 23:59:59, per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations . I'd like to see an explanation why this was ignored and instead the deadline was extended, which seems quite unfair towards those who were ready on time.
In any case, there are now 7 candidates. 5 of whom should be disqualified because they didn't have their Questionnaires ready to be published by Dec 4th @ 23:59:59, per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations . I'd like to see an explanation why this was ignored and instead the deadline was extended, which seems quite unfair towards those who were ready on time.
https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/153 has some of the reasoning behind this.
For full transparency, my name was only added as a candidate today after the deadline had already been extended and after a discussion with @mattdm. The deadline WAS NOT extended for the express purpose of allowing that. If the other FESCo candidates find my nomination to somehow be illegitimate at this point, I will withdraw without complaint.
And for the record, I do intend to complete the questionnaire before the new deadline.
I'm strongly in favor of having candidates do the questionnaire. But, if we disqualify everyone who didn't have the questionnaire ready by the non-extended deadline, then we're back to not having a full field of candidates and the deadline extends again, which is kind of a silly loop to go through.
I definitely would like to support/encourage/reward the candidates who did submit a questionnaire by the original deadline, though, and I'll certainly take that into consideration in my own voting. I'm not sure what else would be most fair.
I think we need to rethink the process again for the next elections, too. Clearly a number of things didn't work out quite as planned.
It doesn't explain why the questionnaire deadline was extended more than the nomination deadline.
The current FESCo elections policy says this:
Candidates must self-nominate at least three days before the election opens by writing their information onto the wiki.
So, technically, if the deadline for nominations was extended by 3 days, your nomination was too late anyway. Again, I have to question why we have those policies if they're ignored whenever it's convenient.
That's commendable, thank you.
Metadata Update from @bex: - Issue priority set to: Next Meeting (was: Back Burner)
New elections are in process. @rathann, I think there's definitely still room for improvement to the policies and process, but let's see how this one goes and then develop what needs to be done to make it even better from there. Does that sound reasonable?
Metadata Update from @mattdm: - Issue close_status updated to: approved - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
@mattdm I'm quite happy with the procedure used for Jan 2018 elections, thank you very much (and @jkurik , too!). It's definitely an improvement.
Log in to comment on this ticket.