Upcoming Council vote

Joshua Cranmer 🐧 pidgeot18 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 13 00:53:56 UTC 2016


On 2/12/2016 6:19 PM, BA wrote:
> I disagree with your plan of ’no open nomination process’ here as this 
> is not how the open source community should function or what it stands 
> for. I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to any of the 
> candidates but rather to your proposed process. I am sure all the 
> candidates will agree that we all want to do what is best for the 
> future of TB.
> If you want to elect a Thunderbird council that has legitimacy and credibility, this is not the way to go about it. Don’t we all want to choose from a  pool of  most qualified  and dedicated contributors (past as well as present) to serve on the new TB council who are committed to grow TB and re-energize TB development?  I strongly believe an open nomination process is the most credible and productive course to achieve this.
>
> A pre-selected group with an 'all or nothing' vote is not a good approach. An open nomination process with a subsequent vote would empower the TB council. Can you please share the reasons why you want to narrow the field of contenders to the number of seats on the council? In my opinion,  what you are proposing does not match the definition of an open, democratic and transparent election.
>
> I think you not only need to invite all the volunteers (past and present) who have contributed to Thunderbird to apply, but also not restrict this process in any way, shape or form. If you have only 9 candidates for 9 seats and you disallow an ‘open nomination process’ and with that limit the roster of volunteers from which the TB contributors can choose , then I do not see how this has anything to do with an open and democratic election process.
>
> Is not possible to benchmark the election process of TDF and other leading open source projects and thereby implement the new TB council election process accordingly ? We need a new TB council with unquestionable legitimacy for the upcoming critical decisions and the current suggested process will prevent that from happening.

Of the open source projects I am familiar with, none of them have a 
central administrative council that is fully elected by the userbase. 
For example, the LLVM Foundation Foundation was appointed effectively by 
itself (consisting of core developers of the project), Firefox is 
managed by a corporation, and Debian by a council that appoints itself 
but is subject to effectively a public recall. Python and Linux (and 
pretty much every tiny software project, too) are effectively 
dictatorships. This process is already far on the democratic side of the 
spectrum merely by subjecting the council election to a wider vote. In 
my experience, given the tendency I've seen for a lot of apathy on this 
list, I don't think a more open nomination process would be any more 
effective.

If you disagree with the process, you could simply just vote against the 
slate of nominees regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

-- 
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist



More information about the tb-planning mailing list