On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The reason a member from each FESCo, FAmSCo and Board was included was because each of those groups, as I understand it, has different election rules and each representative would be responsible to inform FEMA of whatever changes in these rules came about; also the member from each group would serve as a liaison to each.
I think we currently have what is called an "Election Wrangler," which I assume to be the Project Leader (though if I'm wrong, I'm certainly glad to be corrected). As inode0 has mentioned in an earlier e-mail, elections have worked in the past this way.
I have no qualms with having an "election czar" overseeing things, providing that
-- This person can provide support for the elections, from start to finish; and
-- This person has the authority of enforcement to stick with rules and deadlines and not allow for them to be broken, with "enforcement" meaning taking action against those who break rules.
Frankly, I don't see how an "election czar" can work without some sort of structure -- committee or whatever you want to call it -- to achieve his/her goals.
Agreed.
Amen.
Larry Cafiero
I'll just drop my 2cents here at the (current) end of thread:
- I think it might be a bad idea to make up a body to oversee elections
from groups that are having the elections where there could well be
overlap at times. (ie, fesco member appointed to FEMA one cycle, then
is running for re-election the next). It might be better to get folks
who are NOT running for any elected position, or perhaps people who
had served in the past on fesco/board/famsco, but aren't currently.
The reason a member from each FESCo, FAmSCo and Board was included was because each of those groups, as I understand it, has different election rules and each representative would be responsible to inform FEMA of whatever changes in these rules came about; also the member from each group would serve as a liaison to each.
Perhaps the Board could appoint an "election czar" who does this.
Perhaps appointing them right after the elections finish for the next
ones.
I think we currently have what is called an "Election Wrangler," which I assume to be the Project Leader (though if I'm wrong, I'm certainly glad to be corrected). As inode0 has mentioned in an earlier e-mail, elections have worked in the past this way.
I have no qualms with having an "election czar" overseeing things, providing that
-- This person can provide support for the elections, from start to finish; and
-- This person has the authority of enforcement to stick with rules and deadlines and not allow for them to be broken, with "enforcement" meaning taking action against those who break rules.
Frankly, I don't see how an "election czar" can work without some sort of structure -- committee or whatever you want to call it -- to achieve his/her goals.
- Again I wish for a ical feed of "whats happening in fedora", so
everyone could see deadlines and dates come up. I'm not sure that
would have fixed issues this cycle, but it might have helped.
Agreed.
Anyhow, good ideas, hopefully we can setup something to improve things
before next cycle.
Amen.
Larry Cafiero
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
