On 30/10/2014 11:22, Angus Salkeld wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Eoghan Glynn <egl...@redhat.com > <mailto:egl...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > > > IIRC, there is no method for removing foundation members. So > there > > > > are likely a number of people listed who have moved on to other > > > > activities and are no longer involved with OpenStack. I'd > actually > > > > be quite interested to see the turnout numbers with voters who > > > > missed the last two elections prior to this one filtered out. > > > > > > Well, the base electorate for the TC are active contributors with > > > patches landed to official projects within the past year, so these > > > are devs getting their code merged but not interested in voting. > > > This is somewhat different from (though potentially related > to) the > > > "dead weight" foundation membership on the rolls for board > > > elections. > > > > > > Also, foundation members who have not voted in two board elections > > > are being removed from the membership now, from what I understand > > > (we just needed to get to the point where we had two years > worth of > > > board elections in the first place). > > > > Thanks, I lost my mind here and confused the board with the TC. > > > > So then my next question is, of those who did not vote, how many are > > from under-represented companies? A higher percentage there > might point > > to disenfranchisement. > > Well, that we don't know, because the ballots are anonymized. > > So we can only make a stab at detecting partisan voting patterns, in > the form a strict preference for candidates from one company over all > others, but we've no way of knowing whether voters from those same > companies actually cast the ballots in question. > > > I'd love to see a rule that says you can't vote for people from your > own company. > That would turn things around :-) > > -A > I think that hell would freeze over before that happens...
Maish > > > ... i.e. from these data, the conclusion that the preferred pairs of > candidates were just more popular across-the-board would be equally > valid. > > Conversely, we've no way of knowing if the voters employed by those > "under-represented companies" you mention had a higher or lower > turnout > than the average. > > If there is a concern about balanced representation, then the biggest > single change we could make to address this, IMO, would be to contest > all TC seats at all elections. > > Staggered terms optimize for continuity, but by amplifying the > majority > voice (if such a thing exists in our case), they tend to pessimize for > balanced representation. > > Cheers, > Eoghan > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > <mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Maish Saidel-Keesing
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev