[AFS3-std] chairs?

[Kim Kimball]

At least one person thought I might have intended my comment to be 
contrarian.

To clarify, I'm glad there's a valid mechanism that Hoyle himself would 
approve.

I do believe that the vote takers are explicitly given the authority to 
ratify/close the election, based on

 > 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.

so please do so.

I don't believe consensus is required, unless that is how the vote 
takers choose to "apply common sense."

If it is, sign me up -- I support the results based on the two vote 
takers who have reported in.


Kim






On 11/15/2010 12:55 PM, Kim Kimball wrote:
> > 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 
>>
>>