[Board] Motion: Board election procedure

[Michael P. Gerlek]

( If transparency / impartiality is an issue, use the last digit of the day's published Dow index closing number. If 0..4, Alice wins the tie; if 5..9, Bob wins. )

.mpg

> On Jul 7, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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> 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,  W www.lisasoft.com,  F +61 2 9009 5099
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> 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
>> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20140707/20bff76e/attachment.htm>