[Board] Motion: Board election procedure

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi Frank and others,

It is tough for a CRO to have to select a "random" process 
retrospectively. Hence I think we should make it easier by defining the 
process up front.

A "random tie breaker" will typically favour one person over another, or 
even if it is a coin flip, then the looser would be right to feel 
cheated that they lost to a coin flip. I think it better to give a tie 
breaker vote to a person, preferably someone with respect in the 
community. Typically this will be the chair of a committee, and not one 
of the nominees. It could be allocated to a board member who has served 
1 year out of their 2 year term.

We could give the tie breaker person a 0.5 vote instead of a 1.5 vote in 
order to avoid specific accusations.

On re-thinking, a 0.5 vote works for selecting 1 candidate from many 
options, but can still result in a tied vote when selecting many from 
many. Ie, there might be 2 candidates, each with 24.5 votes. As such a 
tie breaker vote should be a ranked vote. (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, ...)

We have learned from experience that a revote can result in a second 
tie, as well as using up precious time, so I suggest avoiding a solution 
which involves a revote.

So I suggest:
1. A ranked tie breaker vote be allocated to a person, that person being 
the CRO, but am happy to consider it being allocated to someone else.
2. The person with the tie breaker vote doesn't have a vote, except in 
the case of a tie.
3. To avoid misfeelings in the community and pressure upon the tie 
breaker, the results of the tie breaker's decision should not be made 
public, and should not be in a position to be deduced. (This probably 
means that we won't publish that there was a tie in the first place).

On 8/07/2014 2:32 am, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Cameron,
>
> I'm not clear why the old technique of a random tie breaker is a problem?
>
> Best regards,
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Cameron Shorter 
> <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     OSGeo Board,
>     I propose the Board Election Procedure be changed to the
>     following, at:
>     http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure_2014
>
>     The non-trivial change I've made is to add a tie-breaker process:
>     /In case of a tied vote for board member positions, the CRO's vote
>     will count as 1.5 times a normal vote, in order to resolve the tie
>     break./
>
>     +1 for the change, Cameron
>
>     If the board agrees to this change, I'll move the text across to:
>     http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure
>
>     Jorge, can you please unlock this page so I can edit it too.
>
>     -- 
>     Cameron Shorter,
>     Software and Data Solutions Manager
>     LISAsoft
>     Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
>     26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009
>
>     P+61 2 9009 5000  <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205000>,  Wwww.lisasoft.com  <http://www.lisasoft.com>,  F+61 2 9009 5099  <tel:%2B61%202%209009%205099>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Board mailing list
>     Board at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Board at lists.osgeo.org>
>     http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, 
> warmerdam at pobox.com <mailto:warmerdam at pobox.com>
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam 
> <http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam>
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer

-- 
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
LISAsoft
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 9009 5000,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20140708/bca5b626/attachment.htm>