#255 Require Council candidates to only run for Council
Closed: declined 2 years ago by bcotton. Opened 2 years ago by bcotton.

Inspired by the request that we provide written guidance on time commitment expectations and some conversations from our meeting in December, I have submitted a pull request to implement a policy that anyone running for an elected Fedora Council seat not run for other elected boards at the same time:

https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/council-docs/pull-request/57

The reasoning is that we have an unspoken (for now) expectation that being on the Council, particularly as an elected representative, will not be a trivial commitment. This is an easier check than trying to determine post-election which body a candidate would rather serve on (and thus having to deal with alternates, etc).

Please have votes and discussions in this ticket.


Closing this ticket until the two week community comment period has passed. In accordance with the policy, I have posted to the council-discuss list and the Community Blog.

Metadata Update from @bcotton:
- Issue untagged with: ticket-vote
- Issue priority set to: Needs Review (was: Next Meeting)

2 years ago

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

2 years ago

For a thread I accidentally posted publicly, it's nice to see this as a first step towards improvement. I think this is a good policy decision. :thumbsup:

Also to emphasize again, I think the publicity and transparency around policy changes is extremely valuable and helps the community stay in the loop on big, important changes without subscribing to all activity on the Fedora Council ticket tracker.

Nothing but good things to say from me. Thanks for listening.

Reopening this ticket as the community comment period has passed. Time for voting!

Metadata Update from @bcotton:
- Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)

2 years ago

+1

Additionally, I don't think we have this policy documented, can we get it with this one assuming this passes? "It's worth noting that we already forbid someone holding an elected
Council seat alongside another Council seat, although that is aimed at
a different purpose."

Additionally, I don't think we have this policy documented, can we get it with this one assuming this passes? "It's worth noting that we already forbid someone holding an elected
Council seat alongside another Council seat, although that is aimed at
a different purpose."

It's documented on the index page, but it makes sense to add that more explicitly to our fledgling policies page. I will do that after the voting ends on this issue, regardless of the outcome on this ticket.

Am 26=2E Juni 2019 14:07:33 MESZ schrieb Ben Cotton pagure@pagure=2Eio:

bcotton added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``

Additionally, I don't think we have this policy documented, can we
get it with this one assuming this passes? "It's worth noting that we
already forbid someone holding an elected
Council seat alongside another Council seat, although that is aimed
at
a different purpose=2E"

It's documented on the index
page
,
but it makes sense to add that more explicitly to our fledgling
policies page=2E
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure=2Eio/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/255

Hi,

I am -1 to not to allow to run for Council and other bodies at the same ti=
me=2E I am 0 with allowing not to have a council seat and one in another bo=
dy and I would prefer just a strong recommendation not to do it=2E

Reading what @till has written, I could get behind a policy of "you can run for whatever you want; but you can't accept any other seat with Council." My concern here is that this makes elections super hard unless we put in a blanket runner-up rule.

@till Could you share your perspective about the benefits of not adopting this policy, per the mailing list discussion a couple weeks ago? I see where you are coming from, but I am curious to understand your view from the discussion on the mailing list.

Am 27=2E Juni 2019 20:59:27 MESZ schrieb "Justin W=2E Flory" pagure@pagure= =2Eio:

jflory7 added a new comment to an issue you are following:
@till Could you share your perspective about the benefits of not adopting this policy, per the [mailing list discussion](https://lists=2Efedoraproject=2Eorg/archives/list/council-dis= cuss@lists=2Efedoraproject=2Eorg/message/YSVLEKICTRB6DSG4VXS3JXFZV5WLIYY5/) a couple weeks ago? I see where you are coming from, but I am curious to understand your view from the discussion on the mailing list=2E

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure=2Eio/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/255

Hi Justin,

to me it seems that my vote agrees with your arguments since my vote makes=
it clear that council needs a commitment and it leaves the decision to the=
community member=2E Not sure what needs more explanation, if you give me s=
ome hint I will try to explain it better=2E

Am 27=2E Juni 2019 19:52:24 MESZ schrieb Brian Exelbierd pagure@pagure=2E= io:

bex added a new comment to an issue you are following:
Reading what @till has written, I could get behind a policy of "you can run for whatever you want; but you can't accept any other seat with Council=2E" My concern here is that this makes elections super hard unless we put in a blanket runner-up rule=2E

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure=2Eio/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/255

Hi Brian,

Not sure what is a blanket runner-up rule=2E And in practice there are not=
enough candidates that this policy seems to have any practical impact to b=
e honest=2E

Reading what @till has written, I could get behind a policy of "you can run for whatever you want; but you can't accept any other seat with Council." My concern here is that this makes elections super hard unless we put in a blanket runner-up rule.

I share that concern (in full disclosure: I'd be the one most impacted by it). It would mean our elections aren't actually final until some period after voting ends. And if there are multiple candidates who could potentially be elected to multiple bodies, then we have additional complications (for example, Candidate A is elected to both Council and FESCo. Candidate B is the next runner-up for Council but also was elected to Mindshare. So if A choses FESCo, then B now has to decide between Council and Mindshare. If they choose Mindshare, then the person who gets seated on the Council is the community's third choice.)

And in practice there are not enough candidates that this policy seems to have any practical impact to be honest

That's true, but it also has no harm and forestalls future trouble. It seems like a rule that's better to adopt before it's needed.

Am 27=2E Juni 2019 21:25:02 MESZ schrieb Ben Cotton pagure@pagure=2Eio:

bcotton added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``

Reading what @till has written, I could get behind a policy of "you
can run for whatever you want; but you can't accept any other seat with
Council=2E" My concern here is that this makes elections super hard
unless we put in a blanket runner-up rule=2E

I share that concern (in full disclosure: I'd be the one most impacted
by it)=2E It would mean our elections aren't actually final until some
period after voting ends=2E And if there are multiple candidates who
could potentially be elected to multiple bodies, then we have
additional complications (for example, Candidate A is elected to both
Council and FESCo=2E Candidate B is the next runner-up for Council but
also was elected to Mindshare=2E So if A choses FESCo, then B now has to
decide between Council and Mindshare=2E If they choose Mindshare, then
the person who gets seated on the Council is the community's third
choice=2E)

And in practice there are not enough candidates that this policy
seems to have any practical impact to be honest

That's true, but it also has no harm and forestalls future trouble=2E It
seems like a rule that's better to adopt before it's needed=2E
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure=2Eio/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/255

Hi,

Since there is only one set for council but many for FESCo, it seems to be=
less likely to me that someone would prefer an FESCo seat over an council =
seat =2E But even if it is the case, the hard rule of not being able to run=
for Council+1 would then mean that the person would not run for Council=2E=
So the community would not get their preference in this case as well=2E Bu=
t the candidate would not know it=2E So being able to run for Council would=
maybe encourage more people=2E

In the other way, of many good candidates run for Council, we would loose =
them for FESCo (and Mindshare) which might be an even harder impact of not =
the community preferences getting into FESCo or Mindshare=2E

Also I was both in FESCo and Council until recently but for me the workloa=
d for FESCo was higher than for Council=2E So I resigned from FESCo=2E So t=
he election results were not final back then as well but it was just handle=
d in FESCo without extra workload for you IIRC=2E

Also I was both in FESCo and Council until recently but for me the workload
for FESCo was higher than for Council=2E So I resigned from FESCo. So t
the election results were not final back then as well but it was just handled
in FESCo without extra workload for you IIRC

A resignation is a different case than uncertain election results that are pending candidates making decisions.

Am 27=2E Juni 2019 21:56:42 MESZ schrieb Ben Cotton pagure@pagure=2Eio:

bcotton added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``

Also I was both in FESCo and Council until recently but for me the
workload
for FESCo was higher than for Council=3D2E So I resigned from FESCo=2E =
So
t
the election results were not final back then as well but it was just
handled
in FESCo without extra workload for you IIRC

A resignation is a different case than uncertain election results that
are pending candidates making decisions=2E
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure=2Eio/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/255

Hi,

IMHO the election results can be announced even if a winner might still de=
cide to serve only in one body=2E If necessary we can also assume that winn=
ers will auto resign in other bodies of they win a council seat unless they=
explicitly tell something different at nomination=2E

+1 from me, for the record.

+1 from me. Makes sense.

So, I am +1 on the "no running for two things at once." I have a couple reasons for this:
a) you should a clear pref for one of the "jobs" and run for that one
b) voters should know you are dedicated to "helping" (can't think of the right word here) a particular group and not just buckshotting a leadership position.
c) probably others im not thinking of

However, I could also be in favor of changing the voting mechanism to support this model. The change to the tool could present all people for all positions. Then I could vote +5 for "Alice" to council and +1 for "Alice" to fesco. I think something like that might get the best of both world. However, it requires coding.

I am +1 and agree with the first paragraph langdon wrote but the second paragraph is crazysauce :)

@till Is there any modification to the proposal which would retain the main intention and would allow you to change your vote to 0 or even +1?

Proposal withdrawn. The Council suggests candidates only run for one position at a time.

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

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata