[Board] Motion: Board election procedure

[Eli Adam]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Jeff McKenna
<jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
> That is difficult.  I was just reading another org's process where a
> new voting round would occur in case of a tie, and if still tied the
> CRO would do a coin flip.  I'm not sure what is best, but I agree that
> the old wording must be changed from: "In case of a vote tie, the CRO
> will use some suitable random method to select from the tied
> candidates for a board slot."

When you have multiple good candidates for the Board with equal
support through votes, what is wrong with "some suitable random method
to select"?  Coin flip seems obvious for a tie between two, but if
there were a three way tie, then the CRO would use some other
"suitable random method".

Eli

>
> -jeff
>
>
>
> On 2014-07-07, 7:01 AM, Jorge Gaspar Sanz Salinas wrote:
>> El 07/07/14 11:33, Bart van den Eijnden escribió:
>>> I’m unsure if it’s a good idea to have the CRO be part of the
>>> voting process. There have been concerns in the past, and I share
>>> them to be honest:
>>>
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2012-August/010802.html
>>>
>>> Best regards, Bart
>>>
>>
>> I don't like the idea also, the CRO has no other responsibility
>> than taking care of the votes, so why having this quality vote
>> distinction.
>>
>> I'd prefer something like a new round or chasing the people that
>> have not voted to break the tie.
>>
>> Any outside reference about how this is resolved in other
>> organizations?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board