[Members] Proposal 2 - Tie resolution proposal

anders conbere aconbere at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 14:56:22 CDT 2009


On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> On Wed Oct  7 23:28:45 2009, Jack Moffitt wrote:
>>
>> PROPOSAL 2: Resolve membership election voting ties with a virtual coin
>> toss.
>>
>>  Currently the bylaws do not give any guidance when several candidates
>> are tied for a position that only a subset of the candidates can win.
>> This needs to be addressed.
>>
>>  This proposal would adopt the methods in RFC 3797 - publicly
>> verifiable random selection. In essence, a source of randomness is
>> publicly chosen, and an algorithm used to select randomly among the
>> candidates.  This is the process used by the IETF, and we feel it
>> would work well for the XSF as well.
>
> I'd like to offer a counter-proposal, that the members can first try to
> resolve the tie by a vote within the meeting.

I think we would be wise to consider the feelings that have been
voiced during this last voiting period. In particular the expressed
sentiment that the members of the meeting acted outside of the mandate
of the full membership (quorate or not). I think that asking for the
present members to vote on ties is likely asking for infighting and
hurt feelings.

I think that could be offset by announcing when the runoff election
would take place, or properly informing the membership that a tie vote
had occurred and action was necessary.

~ Anders

>
> This was the most obvious course of action at the meeting on Tuesday, and
> the only reason we couldn't do it was because the bylaws didn't allow for
> it. (It'd also have the effect of increasing the numbers at these meetings,
> which is frankly no bad thing).
>
> A virtual coin-toss is excellent for selection of NomCom members in the IETF
> precisely because there is no membership of the IETF to vote on such
> matters, so a selection of participants is made to do it. The IESG itself is
> absolutely not selected randomly.
>
> Of course, if we have a tie in the members meeting whilst trying to resolve
> the tie, we'll have to resolve it via something, and random selection is
> probably as good as it gets. But I'm concerned to minimize the effects of
> random selection as much as possible.
>
>> If PROPOSAL 1 is accepted, then Nicolas Verite would become the
>> board's fourth member. No tie break procedure is needed for the 5th
>> possible position as both of the other candidates have withdrawn. In
>> expectation of this propsal passing, the board will invite Nicolas to
>> participate in board meetings, without a vote of his own, until the
>> membership has decided the outcome.
>>
>>
> Not quite - The Board may, under Section 4.7, appoint anyone it likes to the
> vacant position(s), but the membership has to create some first, by
> increasing the size of the Board under Section 4.4 rules.
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
>  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
>  - http://dave.cridland.net/
> Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
>


More information about the Members mailing list