Elections #259
Comments
|
I would like to put my name in the hat for consideration for both the TSC Director and chair positions, but primarily the TSC Director seat (very happy to have someone else take the Chair position ;-) ...) |
|
I would like to put my name in the hat for consideration for the TSC chair position. If there is a need I'm also willing on the Director front (although seems that we already have James raising his hand for that). |
|
I would like to make sure everyone feels enabled and encouraged to run for these roles avoiding/eliminating awkwardness people may feel in doing so. To address this, I have an idea that I've floated past a few of the TSC members with very positive reactions. So, I'm going to try it out: I am nominating all members of the TSC for both the Chair and Director positions. If, for any reason, any member really does not want to do the role(s), I ask that you do not say it. If you do- you can start a landslide of others also doing the same causing the pool of candidates to shrink revealing those that really want to be in the running... and that eliminates the purpose. Since the TSC's approved voting methods ask the TSC members to rank their choices from most desired to least, I ask you to wait until you win to decline the position(s)- at which time the votes can be recalculated with that person removed from the list. Rinse & repeat. Also, I would like to see the votes submitted privately & confidentially. For this, I think we can count on our Linux Foundation resources to help us out. The votes could simply be submitted via email. Perhaps this process will not be popular across the full TSC- and won't happen. In any case, my nominations still stand. |
|
Ping @nodejs/tsc ... the Nominations close tomorrow. I will send details towards the end of the day tomorrow to begin the voting process. |
|
@jasnell as I understand it all TSC members are now nominated for both positions. Are you looking for any other comments/input from us ? |
|
No, just a reminder really. However, if anyone wanted to opt out of the nomination, they could do so. |
|
I'm positive about @williamkapke's suggestion that nominations should be opt-out rather than opt-in, but -1 to not allowing opting out till after the vote, that seems inefficient. @williamkapke: Without explicit nominations, how will we ask people to describe how they'll approach the role? For comparison, we asked those nominated for the Individual membership to describe their platform. |
If we do ranked-choice voting or similar mechanism, I don't think not allowing to opt-out till later will be inefficient. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts though.
/beginsnark are people describing how they'll approach the role now? /endsnark More seriously though, I don't think this is really comparable to the individual membership. The only people who can vote in this are TSC members, and we all know each other reasonably well already. Happy to hop on a Skype call if you want to talk through it though. |
|
Also -1 to not being able to opt out. |
|
I am not sure that opting-out afterwards will work properly unless we use some form of ranked voting. |
|
Nominating everyone drastically skews the voting metrics. I'm not sure what the purpose of nominating people who have not even put in the effort to make a single comment is. The expectations on these roles needs to be much higher, these are basically unpaid jobs, asking that they make the effort of putting themselves forward does not seem like a high bar considering the workload. |
|
I would really thank @rvagg for the awesome work done in these positions. |
|
Ok, so here's the plan: Later on today I will be sending an email out to the TSC members, letting everyone know that they have all been nominated. I'm going to request that any one who wishes to opt out can do so. @mikeal: do you have specific recommendations on the ballot? I was thinking that an email ballot, with the emails being sent to either you and/or @hackygolucky for counting (if either of you do not mind). With the voting to be completed no later than the 29th and the results tallied up and announced the morning of the 30th. Does this work for everyone? /cc @nodejs/tsc |
|
@mikeal's arguments make sense and I think opt-in would be a better approach long term. OTOH there's no great harm in trying opt-out this round so long as we can opt out ;), so +1 to @jasnell's proposal.
Perhaps we all should :). For example, I think it would benefit Node if the TSC assumed more technical responsibility and leadership and worked to better support the CTC and WGs. I'm trying to contribute to that vision myself and would vote for someone who shares that view. |
Honestly the reason for taking this approach is purely psychological. We've seen in a number of cases where one person nominates themselves and that causes no one else to nominate themselves. It shifts from being "would I be good for this role?" to "Is it worth it to run against this other person?" I just had a different idea though. In the future, we could have a private nomination process where everyone submits their candidacy to, say, Mikeal or Tracy, and then all candidates are revealed at the same time after the nomination period ends. |
... it is to be neutral/unbiased; that's the entire point here.
... sounds like you're wanting to be nominated! Done! Yup - ya'll absolutely can opt out at any time... but, please know that you'll be doing so at the discomfort of others. There really isn't any harm in waiting until you're elected to opt out though. Please feel free to help brainstorm here: nodejs/community-committee#31 |
Except the effect is the opposite. Rather than having people on the ballot who are putting themselves forward to do the work you've turned it into a pure popularity contest of the current membership. |
|
@mikeal... we need to get the actual voting started. How do you recommend proceeding? |
... I guess I have a higher faith in our TSC's members' ability to make the choice. BUT- your offensive opinion has been noted. |
|
@williamkapke It's not about faith in individuals, it's about group incentives. We've been going back and forth on a lot of reforms lately and all of them are about getting same group of people to behave slightly differently given different incentives and constraints. If these same people always made what you would consider perfect choices we wouldn't need to make any changes at all, we wouldn't even need governance. @jasnell I've setup ballotbin with a ranked voted system for each position. Can you lay out the list of each candidate for each position and the email list of all voting TSC members and I can load them all into the app. |
|
@jasnell also, what day/time should the voting close? |
|
Absolutely... Here are the nomination lists. I will send you the email list separately via email. Voting should be completed by May 29th for tallying on May 30th TSC Director Nominees James Snell @jasnell (nomination accepted)
TSC Chair Nominees Michael Dawson @mhdawson (nomination accepted)
|
|
The board meeting is on May 29th so you should close before that. Is there some reason you need more than a week for people to vote? I thought @rvagg said specifically he didn't want to run?
I would like to note that, without so much as a full discussion, the entire election nomination process has been changed. While it was *possible* to nominate everyone, that was never the intention of the current process, and we have now moved entirely to an "opt out" process. This was never the intention of the current process, which encouraged the nomination of others by members as a way to encourage specific nominations, not to migrate to an entirely different process when a single member wished to change it.
As I am not a voting member I can't formally object to these changes but this sets a concerning precedent. |
|
Ah.. right, May 28th then (I had the dates wrong for the board meeting) As far as I know, @rvagg has not officially opted out since all TSC members were nominated, effectively putting his name back into the hat. |
|
I'd like to officially opt out of running for both positions. |
|
@mikeal As mentioned before, I welcome you to add your opinions to the discussion at nodejs/community-committee#31 and I ask that you stop stating your opinions as facts. |
|
I would definitely like to state that I'm in agreement with @mikeal on this mass nomination bit. My first initial reaction was positive, but as I thought through it more, it's definitely less than ideal for all the reasons that @mikeal states. The challenge, however, is that our charter does not actually define how nominations occur and does not provide for automatically opting anyone out once they've been nominated. As acting chair, there's nothing in there that would allow me to impose a policy one way or the other. Therefore, we're a bit stuck by William's nomination. In fact, the entire process here is so undefined that we're fairly way off track. At this point, however, what I want is to have the election rather than continue delaying through disagreements over process. So here's what I propose.... absent a clear documented process for this, I'm going to exercise my authority as chair to ask that anyone currently nominated weigh in on whether they accept the nomination by End-of-Day GMT on Wednesday, May 17th. The voting will start on May 18th. Only individual @nodejs/tsc members who have explicitly Accepted the nomination for a particular position will be included on the ballot for that position. I will send an email out to the TSC members expressing this also. |
|
@williamkapke while I certainly have **opinions** regarding this new process the problem I have with what you did has nothing to do with the pros and cons of different nomination methods, it's the fact that you instituted a new process that you effectively described to the TSC for the first time in a comment in this thread, without so much as a discussion with the TSC. you used your deeper understanding of the current rules *as written* to institute a new system you favored without a vote or formal change to the current process. **this is not ok**.
there's a process for changing governance and election rules and it has not been followed, it has just been cleverly subverted. the impact of this on the current election process may be minimal but the precedent it sets is much more troubling. |
|
I don't intend to run, please remove me from the list of nominees. |
|
@jasnell Where would you like community members to post comments about the nomination process? |
|
@isaacs I'd also say nodejs/community-committee#31 |
|
@jasnell we should probably post our "blurbs" in the same place. Have you already figured out a good place ? Otherwise we can probably just open a new issue to capture those. |
|
@mhdawson ... New issue works for me |
|
Sorry, I was off. I opt out both. I've just updated #259 (comment). |
|
@nebrius CommComm has autonomy to decide on its own how to handle its election, let's not blur the lines between CommComm and the TSC by merging the discussion.
|
|
> CommComm has autonomy to decide on its own how to handle its election, let's not blur the lines between CommComm and the TSC by merging the discussion.
I don't really agree with this. Each committee has the autonomy to handle its own elections, yes, but that doesn't mean they should be different. Each committee is struggling with this same problem right now, and I think it's in our best interest to collaborate with each other to come up with the best solution possible. Let's not reinvent the wheel here. As prior art on sharing processes, CommComm and the TSC have the autonomy to handle their own CoC and moderation, but we've chosen to go with a unified approach because it reduces confusion and also reduces overhead necessary to administer these things. EDIT: putting off-topic comment in details tag |
|
Added #264 to address @rvagg 's suggestion above #259 (comment). |
|
Please remove me from the lists. |
|
I am not running for either position, sorry. |
|
I doubt @piscisaureus is either so we're back where we started :) |
|
@mikeal should we have received a new ballots ? |
|
@jasnell I want to make sure I get this right, can you give the final list of candidates in each position? |
|
Ok, so following this means that @mhdawson is the Chair. We don't have an election when there is only one candidate (https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/TSC-Charter.md#section-7-elections). Based on earlier statements I guess this means that if elected to the board director @mhdawson may step down from one of the seats and if he steps down from the chair we'll just need to have another election. New ballot is up and a new email should have gone out. |
|
@nodejs/tsc: Not sure if new email notifications went out but the link in the ballot email that was sent out a couple of days ago still works. Please cast your votes! |
|
We're still waiting on 6 people to vote in the election, please get it in this week!!! |
|
What time today should we close the election? Right now the margin between the two candidates is 2 votes and there are still two people who haven't voted :/ |
|
Let's call it at 6pm
…On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:18 AM Mikeal Rogers ***@***.***> wrote:
What time today should we close the election?
Right now the margin between the two candidates is 2 votes and there are
still two people who haven't voted :/
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#259 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAa2eZVpKuKJkiqDGpWfXgaEFwMtiG7tks5r-v3pgaJpZM4NQidG>
.
|
|
Pacific time
…On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:19 AM James M Snell ***@***.***> wrote:
Let's call it at 6pm
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 10:18 AM Mikeal Rogers ***@***.***>
wrote:
> What time today should we close the election?
>
> Right now the margin between the two candidates is 2 votes and there are
> still two people who haven't voted :/
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#259 (comment)>, or mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAa2eZVpKuKJkiqDGpWfXgaEFwMtiG7tks5r-v3pgaJpZM4NQidG>
> .
>
|
|
Ok, might be a little after 6pm if I'm eating dinner at that time :P |
|
6pm or there about sounds good to me as well. |
|
James Snell has won the election for Board Chair. Michael Dawson is still the TSC Chair as he won the prior election. |
|
Thank you @mikeal. |
It's time to kick off the election for TSC Director and TSC Chair. The nomination period starts now through next Thursday (the 11th). @nodejs/tsc members only, please leave a comment here if you intend to run for 1) TSC Director, 2) TSC Chair, 3) Both. If you'd like, you may nominate another TSC member for the positions. If that happens, the nominated member should respond to accept the nomination.
We will start the voting process on May 11th
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: