Fedora-Council / tickets

The Fedora Council uses this to record ongoing work and to track issues which need a specific resolution.  |  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council

#153 Autumn 2017 Elections - Delay of publishing candidates' interviews

Created a month ago by jkurik
Modified 6 days ago

The original plan of the Elections we are currently running (Autumn 2017) was to publish interviews with candidates to FESCo, Mindshare and Council on December 5th. However, only small number of candidates has completed this interview. As I had some discussion with the candidates, some were reporting technical difficulties (404 error code on Community blog), some were complained about limited time to prepare the interview.

As disqualification of the candidates who do not have the interview ready will lead to restart of the whole election cycle due to low number of candidates, not being able to occupy the open seats as well as having vacation/holiday period (Christmas) ahead of us, I would like to ask the Fedora Council for approval to postpone the deadline for completing Interviews on December 11th, and publishing interviews on December 12th, 2017.

a month ago

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Issue priority set to: Next Meeting
- Issue tagged with: elections

Shouldn't the voting period be postponed in sync with this?

Given the length of the delay in publishing, I am thinking that extending the voting period makes sense.

The reason why we do not want to postpone the voting period are Christmas. The voting period has already been prolonged from one week to two weeks and we are going to publish the interviews after one week since the Voting period has started.

Could we at least have the voting for all three elections close on the same day? I think it's going to be a confusing mess otherwise.

Could we at least have the voting for all three elections close on the same day? I think it's going to be a confusing mess otherwise.

I believe we have it: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections#Elections_Schedule
Or do I misunderstand ?

No, I misunderstood. That looks good. People can change their votes up until the close of the election, right? So people who vote before the interviews are up can change their minds?

Yes, people can change their votes until the close of the Voting period.

As one of the two nominees who actually had the questionnaire in Pending Review state before the original deadline, I'm against this delay if it's not accompanied by the same delay in starting the voting period, as most votes are cast in the first few days. Time to prepare the interview was long enough in my opinion, too.

Despite what @jkurik wrote, I was not part of any discussion with him. I also don't understand what's the point of having all these policies if they are not followed.

I deleted my Questionnaire in protest against the Council's actions. I would also like to note that Community Blog editors (who are they, anyway?) have an unfair advantage of being able to read everyone's posts before publication so they should lose their editor privileges for the time of the elections.

In case it wasn't clear, I propose that the candidate Questionnaire deadline be brought in-line with the delayed start of the voting period, i.e. Dec 7th, 23:59:59 UTC and that whoever doesn't have theirs ready for publication be disqualified from the election, per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee/Nominations .

@rathann thank you for expressing your point of view, which leads me to express mine:

In general: the whole "Campaign" period does not make much sense to me. I believe we are adult people and if anyone wants to candidate to any position in a community it should be his/her responsibility to advertise his/her personality in the community or rely on a "good name" such a person has. I do not see a reason why this should be somehow organized. I would personally prefer simplified process for the Elections to just two phases: Nomination and Voting. However the current approved process for Elections is different and I am trying to deal with it .

Specifically to the current situation: making interview as mandatory prerequisite for candidates was a new idea for this election cycle and we were waiting how it will work. As we can see now, it does not work well. There were only 3 of 14 candidates having the interview ready on time. Rejecting all the candidates without interview ready means restart of the whole Elections for lack of candidates. As I wrote above, I believe the way how candidates promote them self should be their own decision and should not be organized. Having this on my mind, I decided to propose a compromise, to avoid restart of the whole Elections. The proposal can be re-phrased like this: Lets finish this Elections overcoming somehow the issue with interviews and re-validate the decision of having interviews as mandatory prerequisite for the next cycle.

I respect your decision to delete your interview, however with all the respect, I would prefer constructive proposals to find a balance and optimal way how to organize Elections, instead of resistance.

Edited a month ago by jkurik

As a voter, I'd like to know who made the interview on time. Not doing it on time is a significant pointer for me - this person doesn't mean it seriously, or is too busy to do it, maybe they are busy to do the role they want me to vote them into. By moving the deadline, we are shadowing this kind of information about the candidates.

@churchyard I had my interview completed on time, and transmitted to the 'officials' running the election

interview

but there were problems in the Fedora side instructions on how to proceed, being incomplete, or untested, or something outside of my knowledge, such that I could not self-stage it to be published on the release embargo expiration, So I sent to the election master with CCs to a couple others, and with screen shots attached

offered View Post link

returned a 404

Nominees not having their interview ready by end of the Nomination & Campaign period will be disqualified from their nominations.

were part of the ground-rules, per:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council/Nominations

at: Community Blog Interview

@jkurik and I exchanged emails and screen-shots (along with CCs to a couple of other people not posting in this thread, I think, and so I respect their privacy) about getting the content positioned to conform to the published deadlines

It looks as though my 'candidate statement' content was waiting in an 'approval' queue, but in ownership to another, so I could not preview it. I know that there are markup errors I wanted to address

Additionally as I worked between Pagure and fedoraproject wiki trying to get the Candidate Statement up, it became clear that there were markup variations , and issues with 'Preview' not working as expected for blockquote, and more, and opened a few bugs of items I noticed along the way, and which were traiged promptly. Thank you, I know that I have an action item to get a series of screen-shots to explain what I wanted to convey in words, but was not sufficiently clear on

Dennis Gilmore was also nominated and had a statement in the publish queue. I do not recall beyond his item

@jkurik said:

Yes, people can change their votes until the close of the Voting period

and the disqualification if no interview was forthcoming was well noticed in advance -- three of the five candidates defaulted, and were previously stricken through as not qualified; that is gone today.

Indeed, canceling an election, after balloting has begun strikes me as most irregular. The rules were stated; some conformed to them, others did not. I had voted, for example, on the two open elections, and marked by diary for the remaining one's revised start date. Two days ago it was on; now or today, we are not proceeding ... no notice to me as an affected candidate

... and the person canceling the election was the only person objecting to the Candidate Interview' statement

https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/135

This is not proper, nor democratic, to have the one person doing the cancellation, the same person who did not want something in the process

Edited a month ago by herrold

There is another discrepancy:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_election_policy says

Candidates must self-nominate at least three days before the election opens by writing their information onto the wiki.

but the announcement e-mails said:

Today we are approximately in the middle of Nomination & Campaign
period and we accept nominations [...]
This period is open until 2017-Dec-04 at 23:59:59 UTC.

Voting was supposed to start on Tuesday, so those two texts are in contradiction.

Candidates must self nominate at least three days before the election opens by writing their information onto the wiki ([...] what they hope to accomplish while a member of FESCo.)

This is in contradiction to using the community blog too.

FTR, I submitted my nomination along with the a draft in the community blog on Monday, based on the e-mail announcement. I think most other candidates did that over the weekend too.

I found the whole process very confusing: I assumed that submitting a draft is enough, since I don't have the privileges on the community blog to do anything else, and somebody would "publish" those drafts when the deadline is reached. But I don't know if I guessed correctly. It would be great to clarify what the procedure is.

Another note: I think the elections for the three bodies must start and end together, and the interviews must be available when voting starts. I personally vote when I get the e-mail about the voting period being open (otherwise I'd forget) and I read the interview and evaluate candidates and vote in one go. I expect a significant number of people do the same thing. Making voting harder reduced the turnout and is bad for Fedora in general.

@zbyszek Yeah, it's a mess. Sorry about that. There aren't a lot of good options, but I think at this point the best is a do-over.

The revamped election is now in process.

6 days ago

Metadata Update from @mattdm:
- Issue close_status updated to: approved
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

Login to comment on this ticket.