On 10/09/08 03:34, James Carlson wrote: > Tim Cramer writes: > >>> High-level: why appointment via Sun rather than a new election? Again, I'm >>> not saying this is right or wrong, just curious as to the rationale. >>> >>> >>> >> Didn't realize this was in the constitution. Currently, unless I'm >> mistaken, if someone "leaves" the board for whatever reason, the next >> person from the previous election results would take over in vote >> totals, is that correct? Would we continue that process until we ran >> out of candidates and then hit this? If so, a "re election" seems more >> appropriate, I'd be really surprised if we hit that case. >> > > That'd be sections 6.4 and 6.5. > > 6.4 says that if the OGB members all quit or die at once, then there's > a special election. (Article X gives the authority to call that > election and declare the results to Sun, but doesn't really describe > how "Sun" should take that up.) > > 6.5 says that if an OGB member is *removed* (rather than just quits), > then the vacancy is cannot be filled until the next election. I guess > if the Members held a vote of "no confidence" in each member one at a > time, you'd eventually end up with a too-small OGB, and trip over > Article X. > > The previous election results matter only if someone quits or dies in > office, and then only if the required minimum are left in order to > have an official OGB meeting to handle the problem >
I tried to combine some of these sections so they are not spread out. Also, if Sun had to appoint a new board, the obvious choice to do it would be the exec representative (currently T. Cramer). But then things can continue as per the constitution and the next election comes around as scheduled. Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ogb-discuss/attachments/20081015/22694cd6/attachment.html>
