Re: [OSCOM] Sandro steps back

On Sep 8, 2006, at 5:22 AM, Daniel Hinderink wrote:

> Hi List,
>
>> Those who want to be in the board step forward by the 14th of  
>> September by
>> writing to the list.  That is from the new member list. If you are  
>> not one of
>> those, sign up for that and join IRC.
>
> I would like to renew my offer to actively contribute to OSCOM.  
> Below I am
> outlining what I think OSCOM should be doing/amiming for followed  
> by what I
> can contribute in time and abilities and what experience I am  
> drawing from.

Just to make sure we're clear, are you saying you'd like your name in  
the ring for the board election?

There are two others that wrote to me in private expressing an  
interest.  I will email them and ask them to make a similar statement  
on the list.  I'll keep track of the list and, when we reach a  
deadline[1], I'll publish the list of candidates.  We can then do a  
vote.

[1] We have one comment on how long the nomination period should be.   
Any other input?  If not, we will go with Saturday, Sep 16.

[2] We have some feedback on how the voting should work, but don't  
seem to be converging on a single choice.  The bylaws say that the  
board is elected by a member meeting (Article V).  There are two  
flavors of member meeting, but clause 5.3 and 5.4 are contradictory  
on 30 day notice.  I can't find anything in the bylaws that dictates  
the format of the member meeting.  I thus suggest we take a liberal  
interpretation while trying to avoid direct contradiction.

As such, I propose that:

1) We have a member meeting exclusively for electing the board,  
conducted during the period Sep 19-20, and conducted via email.

2) The election committee will email each member (old and new) and  
ask for a reply with five names from them for their board vote.

3) The election committee will process the raw data and announce the  
results to the list on Sep 21.

4) The raw data will later be given to the new president and  
secretary once the board selects its officers.

At this stage, we should probably constrain feedback to "I cannot  
accept that election process" instead of "Maybe it would be better  
if".  It's not easy, at this stage, to tell when a discussion ends  
and how to convert open discussion into policy.

--Paul