[AFS3-std] chairs?

[Kim Kimball]

 > In any situation which draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00 does
 > not anticipate or address, the vote-takers will apply common sense
 > to determine an appropriate course of action.

Perfect.  So let's apply the common sense, declare the election 
ratified, and move forward.

Kim


On 11/15/2010 12:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> --On Monday, November 15, 2010 11:09:59 AM -0700 Kim Kimball 
> <dhk@ccre.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm confused.
>>
>> If we have rules for ourselves, we should follow them.
>
> We don't.  We're in a bootstrapping phase; to establish a charter we 
> need chairs, while to elect chairs we need a charter, or at least some 
> rules for an election.  The registrars resolved this by asking for and 
> getting consensus for running the first elections under the rules 
> contained in Simon's draft charter.  The entirety of anyone's 
> authority in this process derives from that consensus, and from 
> people's willingness to abide by its outcome, once we're done.
>
> Unfortunately, those rules were incomplete in a number of ways, some 
> of which were not discovered until the process was underway, or 
> later.  Many of the potential edge cases simply did not trigger.  We 
> didn't lack for nominations; no one inadvertently revealed the status 
> of the ongoing eleection; we did't have all of the registrars accept 
> nominations, leaving no vote-takers.  To name a few.
>
> Unfortunately, we now have encountered an edge case the rules didn't 
> anticipate.  The rules state that the election results must be 
> announced, independently by each vote-taker, within 7 days of the 
> close of voting. Two vote-takers did that, while the third did not 
> (and presently cannot, because he doesn't have access to his machines 
> containing the data, even though he is online).  The rules we're 
> operating under don't say what happens in this case.
>
>> If they're in the way, which they are, they should either be 
>> corrected or
>> abandoned.
>
> Yes; there have been some discussions about how to improve the 
> elections process.  Hopefully the lessons we've learned will be 
> applied as the group writes its permanent charter.
>
>> If there's a call for "is the election legit," I'm personally fine with
>> it and have been.
>
> Yes, there is such a call, as stated in Doug's message, "Call for 
> consensus on the election of the co-chairs", and my followup, both 
> dated Nov 12.
>
>> I'm not fine with establishing rules and then discarding them, 
>> regardless
>> of whether we're an organisation, a small group, a gaggle, murder, herd,
>> or flock.
>
> We're not doing that.  That said, especially in a small group such as 
> this, it is apprporiate for the group as a whole to override 
> particular rules when necessary, and I hope the permanent charter will 
> include an explicit provision to permit that.
>
>
>
>
>
> To be clear...
>
> In my message, "Call for Votes", sent on August 24, and speaking for 
> the registrars/vote-takers as a group, I wrote the following:
>
>
>> Because the elections process has never been used or tested before, 
>> there
>> are inevitably some gaps which need to be filled.  Additionally, we feel
>> the circumstances of bootstrapping call for special handling which is 
>> not
>> fully spelled out in the provisional charter.  Therefore, the 
>> vote-takers
>> have taken several decisions regarding the process for the present
>> election _only_.  It is our hope that once the election is concluded and
>> chairs are installed, the group will take what we have learned (and what
>> we will learn) into consideration when formulating its initial charter.
>> The decisions we've taken are as follows:
>
> ...
>
>> - In any situation which draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00 does
>>   not anticipate or address, the vote-takers will apply common sense
>>   to determine an appropriate course of action.
>
>
>
> This is such a provision, and we're invoking that bullet point now.
>
> In response to the community, Doug has issued a consensus call on 
> whether to accept the election results posted by Thomas and myself 
> without waiting for David's confirmation.  Note that even if the 
> election results are _not_ accepted, under the lack-of-rules we have 
> so far, Doug has as much authority to do this as anyone else.
>
> Applying common sense but also preferring to err on the side of 
> caution, the vote-takers plan to wait for the timer on this call to 
> run out, then make a determination as to its result and act accordingly.
>
> -- Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> AFS3-standardization mailing list
> AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization 
>
>