Thunderbird Council: Voting Process

Gervase Markham gerv at
Wed Feb 17 12:40:55 UTC 2016

On 17/02/16 00:00, Onno Ekker wrote:
> So, both people that are against the process and people that are against
> one or more proposed members of the council should vote no? Giving you
> no way to distinguish between the two?

Yes, that's correct.

> And if the motion is rejected (fat chance I admit), you say the ballot
> shall be re-run.

I think you've mis-read it. In the extremely unlikely event that the
motion passes but the margin of victory is smaller than the number of
ballots that Ben and I can't agree how to handle (which we hope and
expect will be 0), the ballot will be re-run. This is me covering all
the bases, not an outcome with any significant likelihood of happening.

If the vote is No, then we will do a full governance reform process,
however long that takes. I would assume that involves something like the
following: defining who the electorate is (not a trivial task), and then
a general method of voting for things, and then proposing, discussing,
voting on and agreeing a governance structure, and then proposing,
discussing, voting on and agreeing a voting system which can elect
people into that governance structure, and then getting candidates, and
having them write platform statements, and giving time for the
electorate to consider the candidates, and then having another vote.

And then, of course, the governance would quite likely be reformed again
to a new system once Thunderbird chooses a fiscal home, which it will do
in the next few months.

If you believe that the end result of the above long process would be
the election of the same or substantially the same group of people who
are on the list we are voting about on Saturday, you might agree with me
that perhaps this is unnecessary in the current situation.


More information about the tb-planning mailing list