On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:56 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/13/2012 02:26 AM, inode0 wrote: >> As a multi-term election wrangler I want to be clear that the election >> wrangler organizes the election and coordinates with all the concerned >> parties but does not set election rules. The election rules are set by >> each governance body to suit their needs. > > It kinda goes without saying that with an specific "election committee" > design to slim line and manage the whole election process, each governance > body would no longer be able to adjust the rules to suit their needs... I disagree with this. I think having an election committee, group, or wrangler to manage the election process is all fine and good but that is a different issue than having such a committee, group, or wrangler setting the rules governing the groups themselves. We have a lot of governance bodies, many more than the three we elect or partially elect during these elections. The governance bodies self-form and determine their own rules (they determine their own existence with the exception of the Board). Many do not have elections or have elections that we don't see as part of the elections we make a big fuss over. My only request of the governance bodies that want to participate in the release cycle election process is that they agree to accommodate an election schedule that all can make do with. So for example we don't need to have townhalls year round and we don't need to set up the election app 15 times throughout the year. Agreeing to a common schedule is about all I ask. Even whether things like townhalls or questionnaires are part of the process I think should be left to the individual bodies to decide whether those make sense and are useful to them. >> Be aware though >> that the eligible voters are not the same for each governance body so >> this could be a little tricky. > > Arguably eligible voters and nominees should always be the same for each > governance body as in anyone from within the community can run for anything > and vote on anything ( One thing I think should be fixed in the election > process ). Quite the contrary I think it is obvious that eligible voters and nominees should not be the same for all groups. You are only I suppose talking about the Board, FESCo, and FAmSCo but there are other governance bodies and they are working well enough without any other group butting into their business. John _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
