|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Introduction == | | == Filling Vacant Seats === |
|
| |
|
| [[FAmSCo]] currently suffers form a few organizational problems and some of them are caused be the way how FAmSCo is constituted. We need to change the [[FAmSCo election rules]] to address them. | | At Blacksburg we already agreed on not filling up the vacant seeds with runner-up candidates from the previous election ''according to their rank in the voting''. [[JohnRose]] proposed to simply appoint vacant seats, this is also what the board does. [[ChristophWickert]] however would like to have the runner-up candidates ''considered'' first. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Problems overview == | | == Misconduct == |
| # FAmSCo does not have enough (active) members
| | * In order to remove somebody, do we need an unanimous vote or only an absolute majority? |
| # Lack of consistency
| | * Should removed members be excluded from the next elections? The current rules include: ''If an election becomes necessary upon member removal, the member cannot run for this election, but the removed member CAN run for the next orderly election.'' --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
| # When a new FAmSCo is elected, it needs time to catch up with business and become fully operational
| |
| # Missing announcements
| |
|
| |
|
| == Proposed changes == | | == Reminders == |
| | | FESCo policy claims: "A reminder mail to those who are eligible to vote but haven't done so will be sent three days before the close of the election." Do we really do this? I don't know because I always vote on time. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
| === Not enough members ===
| |
| | |
| '''Problem:''' FAmSCo does not have enough (active) members
| |
| | |
| '''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
| |
| | |
| ''"There are 7 seats on FAmSCo, of which 5 must be filled at all times."''
| |
| | |
| "Below 5" means 4. For 7 seats, this is just the number to constitute a quorum. If one of the 4 remaining members then misses a meeting, FAmSCo is no longer quorate.
| |
| | |
| '''Proposed solution:''' Don't wait until FAmSCo becomes quorate but fill seats as needed with the people who ran in the last elections but did not make it.
| |
| | |
| | |
| === Inactive members don't step down ===
| |
| | |
| '''Problem:''' Inactive members don't step down.
| |
| | |
| '''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
| |
| | |
| ''"A supplementary election must be called immediately if number of active committee members drops below 5 in order to fill the committee's size back up to 7."''
| |
| | |
| A supplementary election is quite a lot of work and takes time. Nobody wants to be responsible for another election, so inactive members remain part of FAmSCo. | |
| | |
| '''Proposed solution:''' Fill seats with the as needed with people who didn't make it in the last election.
| |
| | |
| === Lack of consistency ===
| |
| | |
| '''Problem:''' Lack of consistency.
| |
| | |
| '''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
| |
| | |
| ''"FAmSCo members are elected for a term of two (2) major releases of Fedora, unless an election is called early by the Chairperson of the committee, an absolute majority vote of FAmSCo, or by the Fedora Project Board."''
| |
| | |
| '''Proposed solution:''' Don't elect all 7 seats once a year but have two elections a year where only 3 or 4 seats are up for election.
| |
| | |
| | |
| === New FAmSCo not operational ===
| |
| | |
| '''Problem:''' When people get elected, they need time to find their way into FAmSCo.
| |
| | |
| '''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
| |
| | |
| ''"FAmSCo members are elected for a term of two (2) major releases of Fedora [...]"
| |
| | |
| '''Proposed solution:''' By electing half of the seats every 6 months we make sure that only half of FAmSCo can get replaced. NEw members will be introduced to their work by old members.
| |
| | |
| | |
| === Not enough candidates ===
| |
| | |
| '''Problem:''' FAmSCo elections require a large number of candidates and if this number cannot be reached, the elections are delayed.
| |
| | |
| '''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
| |
| | |
| ''"In order to hold an election, a minimum number of candidates are necessary. This will be the number of open seats + 25%. If there are 7 seats available, there will need to be at least 9 candidates."''
| |
| | |
| '''Proposed solution:''' Don't elect all 7 at a time but only a maximum of 4. With an extra of 25% we then need 5 candidates.
| |
| | |
| === Misconduct ===
| |
| | |
| '''Problem:''' Not sure if this is really a problem, because we didn't have to remove anybody form FAmSCo until now. Nevertheless the fact that the [[Board]] can remove an elected member from FAmSCo is a problem with the constitution.
| |
| | |
| '''Cause:''' Current election rules state:
| |
| | |
| ''"Members can be removed from the committee for misconduct by the Fedora Project Board or by an absolute majority vote of the FAmSCo."''
| |
| | |
| The board is an elected body of Fedora, so is FAmSCo. The board should not be in the position to remove an elected member from FAmSCo, only FAmSCo should be able to do so. Currently it is unclear what happens if FAmSCo disagrees with the board.
| |
| | |
| '''Proposed solution:''' The board should only be able ''request'' the removal from FAmSCo and if a person really misbehaves, it shouldn't be hard to reach a consensus between FAmSCo and the board.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Too long == | | == Too long == |
|
| |
|
| I wonder if the whole beast id becoming too long. The Board's guidelines are short and straight forward. Should we rather base our guidelines on them rather than on on FESCo's? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | | I wonder if the whole beast id becoming too long and if some parts overlap, e.g. parts of 'Members' with 'Filling Vacant Seats'.. The Board's guidelines are short and straight forward. Should we rather base our guidelines on them rather than on on FESCo's? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC) |
Filling Vacant Seats =
At Blacksburg we already agreed on not filling up the vacant seeds with runner-up candidates from the previous election according to their rank in the voting. JohnRose proposed to simply appoint vacant seats, this is also what the board does. ChristophWickert however would like to have the runner-up candidates considered first. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Misconduct
- In order to remove somebody, do we need an unanimous vote or only an absolute majority?
- Should removed members be excluded from the next elections? The current rules include: If an election becomes necessary upon member removal, the member cannot run for this election, but the removed member CAN run for the next orderly election. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Reminders
FESCo policy claims: "A reminder mail to those who are eligible to vote but haven't done so will be sent three days before the close of the election." Do we really do this? I don't know because I always vote on time. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Too long
I wonder if the whole beast id becoming too long and if some parts overlap, e.g. parts of 'Members' with 'Filling Vacant Seats'.. The Board's guidelines are short and straight forward. Should we rather base our guidelines on them rather than on on FESCo's? --Cwickert 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
