[AFS3-std] Re: Suggestion for changing the voting process after bootstrapping

[Tom Keiser]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
> --On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 11:36:35 PM -0500 Andrew Deason
> <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:03:06 -0400
>> Jason Edgecombe <jason@rampaginggeek.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm fine with waiting on the voting to be resolved. To make things
>>> smoother in the coming years, would it be wise to change the voting
>>> procedure to only require two of the three vote takers to decide the
>>> outcome?
>>
>> Assuming I'm remembering the charter doc correctly, the vote takers in
>> future elections are the existing chairs (unless one of them is running
>> for election). The process is different this time because we don't have
>> any existing chairs yet.
>>
>> So in the future, we'll most likely only have one or two vote-takers.
>
> Yes; that's my understanding as well. =A0This actually makes me a little
> nervous; vote-taking is one of the few things that has to be done at leas=
t
> partially in secret, which means it's very hard to verify if there's only
> one vote-taker. =A0I'd prefer to see two or three vote-takers in every
> election, in which case I'd support Jason's suggestion.
>

Agreed.  We can easily fall into the single vote-taker situation when,
for example, an the outgoing incumbent is nominated for re-election,
or a chair vacates their seat during the election.  While I think I
can trust everyone involved, the mere appearance of impropriety could
put a cloud over the standards process.  A two-out-of-three
requirement seems like a good balance of redundancy and verification.

Regarding vote-taker selection, Simon's current text reads:

   In normal operation, the vote-takers are the current standardisation
   group chairs.  In the event that no chair is available to act as a
   vote-taker, then the registrars will perform the vote-taking role.
   If a vote-taker wishes to stand in an election, they must recuse
   themselves from the vote-taking role.  Vote-takers who are also
   eligible voters may vote in the same manner as any other voter.


I'll propose the following:

   In normal operation, there will be three vote-takers.  By default, both
   standardisation group chairs and one AFS assigned numbers
   registrar--to be chosen at the discretion of the registrars--shall serve
   as vote-takers.  If anyone serving as a vote-taker is nominated and
   seconded for election, then they must either recuse themselves
   from the vote-taking process, or reject the nomination.  Whenever
   vote-taking vacancies occur, the order of succession shall be: eligible
   registrars, followed by nomination of any eligible person by the
   remaining vote-taker(s).  Vote-takers who are also eligible voters may
   vote in the same manner as any other voter.

I'm not entirely happy with the above: e.g. if multiple vote-takers
are nominated and seconded quasi-simultaneously, we can end up in a
position where we have one (or even zero) vote-takers; should a
vote-taker be nominated, it doesn't stipulate how long they have to
reach a decision; etc.  I guess the key question is: how many corner
cases should the text cover?

Thoughts?

-Tom