[Members] Metaproposals 3 and 4 - Council Candidate Limitations and Appointment Appeals

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Thu Oct 8 04:32:57 CDT 2009

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Nicolas Vérité
<nicolas.verite at gmail.com> wrote:
> Continuing on proposals:
> * don't accept the candidates who have more 'no' than 'yes'. I think
> it's obvious.


In addition, I think it'd be worthwhile to change the way we vote, and
not limit the number of people that you can vote for. So if you Think
only 3 people are suitable, vote for 3. If you're happy with any of
them then vote for all of them. Pick the top voted as we do now, and
then throw away anyone with more 'no' than 'yes' as Nyco suggests.

> * we also have to find a way to limit the number of candidates and/or
> elected member from one enterprise and/or community, in order to avoid
> the actual problematic situation where we got two members of one
> enterprise in the Council, and one in the Board (so 3 out of 8 to 10
> places)

This has happened before, and I don't think it's caused a problem yet
(we appoint individuals to Board/Council rather than appointing
organisations). It's worth noting that we do have protection from an
organisation's members gaining control of board/council through the
membership limits - it's impossible to have enough XSF members from
one organisation (in the Bylaws) to force the votes through, so
essentially the membership can just not vote for people where they
have a concern about their ability to serve impartially.


More information about the Members mailing list