Upcoming Council vote

ace acelists at atlas.sk
Mon Feb 15 21:53:40 UTC 2016


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi.

In the current state of the project, it is often better to do
something quick, than to architect it overly broadly and "too
perfect". In the latter case, nothing gets done in the end.

Anyway, IF the community does not like the "Current process", it can
vote NO for the presented council. In that case I expect there is a
plan B, which probably is something like your "Fully transparent and
open process". But your assumption that this plan only takes 15
minutes more effort is completely unfounded and does not account for
the behaviour of our current community.

So as long as there is the way to reject the first proposed process
(by voting No), I see no problem with it.

aceman

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Upcoming Council vote
From: BA <ba at pep-project.org>
To: tb-planning at mozilla.org
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:05:34 +0100

> Dear Gerv,
> 
> I could not fathom, from your December e-mail, that the TB Council 
> would not make a public call for volunteers or nominations. Sorry 
> about that. What I do not understand is, where you see this big 
> difference in effort with respect to what you call major
> governance reorganization:
> 
> Current process: a. Current council selects individuals to form
> the new council. b. This group is presented as an all OR nothing 
> election. c. Everyone votes YES/NO
> 
> versus
> 
> Fully transparent and open process: a. Post a call for nominations 
> and volunteers on TB planning b. Present a list of X candidates
> for an election of 9 positions c. Everyone votes for 9 people of
> their choice
> 
> I think the only difference in effort between the 2 processes is 
> about 15 more minutes in vote counting for the second process, and 
> that would give the new TB council full transparency and
> legitimacy going forward and not allow any room for criticism.
> 
> Hence I do not understand what would lead us to chose the first 
> process, which in addition has the big downside of creating a huge 
> mess if the list is voted down. This outcome is avoided in the 
> second process, because you will always have the people with the 
> highest votes in place to carry on.
> 
> With that I rest my case.
> 
> Kind regards, -B — Berna Alp, p≡p project ba at pep-project.org 
> <mailto:ba at pep-project.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlbCSOMACgkQbqmMCC19m/UldgCeOBj32fcuwP9IL4JEr4yWWD5V
gFAAn3Sj92rhBxT2FBpOxU9x5CmWc0/Q
=pb6E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the tb-planning mailing list