I think the informal +/- voting works for this as well unless there are any issues that anyone on this list may have with the process. Barring that the time line that Andrew laid out looks good.
I would only ask that Bill Thompson or Jonathan keep track of the vote progress and email the list with the results after the Sept. 4th deadline. -Eric Andrew Petro wrote: > Jonathan, thank you for bringing this nomination and selection task to > the attention of the uPortal developers. > > > I would appreciate one of you picking up the ball and taking the > next step. > > uPortal committers: > I see this going one of two directions, either fine. One is that, > Apache-style, we arrive at happy consensus as to whom the two > uPortal-developer-selected steering committee members will be. I see > that Cris Holdorph and Drew Wills have already spoken up along these > lines. Additional momentum could result in a feeling of consensus. > Enough +1s and no objections to Cris's proposal, and we've had our > vote. It's not totally implausible that this approach could work for > a small community such as ours. And I think Eric Dalquist would make > a particularly excellent steering committee representative. > > > > Another direction we may need to go here is a more formal process of > nominations and voting. In order to go that route we'd need to > bootstrap some rules. > > > Here's what I propose as a framework for voting: > > 1) uPortal committers may post nominations to this uportal-dev@ list, > with the same deadline for nominations as that for the stakeholder > nominations. That is, nominations must be posted to the list by 5:00 > PM EDT (GMT-4) on Wednesday, August 15, 2007. > 2) We then vote, on the uportal-dev@ list, with each committer invited > to cast one vote for each open position (that is, in the present case, > two votes). Voting closes on Tuesday, September 4, 2007 (to comport > with "results announced soon after Wednesday, September 5, 2007"). > 3) The top two vote recipients as of the election deadline are > recognized as the uPortal developer representatives to the steering > committee. > 4) The uportal committers look to the JA-SIG Elections Committee to > moderate this process, decide any election issues that may arise. > > I would look to the steering committee itself once instituted to > establish some procedures around future elections, handling future > committee vacancies, etc. > > > So, two questions: > 1) Is there interest in pursuing Cris's nomination of myself and Eric > Dalquist to be the uPortal developer representatives to the uPortal > project steering committee, such that a more formal vote is not > necessary? +1s and/or objections to that approach would be helpful. > If anyone has the objection "I'd prefer we have a more formal vote > than look for less formal consensus", I think that's worth hearing and > would be a good reason to go the more formal vote route. > > 2) If a more formal vote is necessary, are the above rules supported > by the participants? Are they sufficient? Discussion towards > consensus on the rules here may be helpful. > > Andrew > > Jonathan Markow wrote: >> Yesterday the JA-SIG Election Committee distributed a Call for >> Nominations announcing the start of an election cycle for two board >> director positions and three uPortal Project Steering Committee >> stakeholder positions. Information about the steering committee, the >> elections, and other governance-related items can be found at >> http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/JA-SIG+Governance. >> >> The steering committee model calls for two developers, to be selected >> by the group of current committers, to serve on the committee. This >> selection isn't governed by a board-defined election process. It's >> left up to you to determine how to best choose the two developer >> representatives. >> >> The formal election process for directors and stakeholders will take >> approximately six weeks, starting with yesterday's announcement. I'd >> like to encourage you folks to begin your own process now so that the >> developer representatives can be announced concurrently with the >> stakeholders and board rep. At that point we should be ready to go >> with a first steering committee meeting (which likely will be via >> telephone). I will also participate in an ex officio capacity as >> Acting JA-SIG Executive Director. >> >> The wiki documentation about the uPortal Project Steering Committee >> is fairly skeletal and that's intentional. This is our first >> experience with a governing committee of this type, and, while we >> have planned and vetted the concept for a number of months, we all >> are nevertheless going to be experiencing it for the first time. Our >> expectation is that it will need some tweaking along the way, and we >> regard it as a work-in-progress to be refined as we collectively >> figure out what works and what doesn't. >> >> I would appreciate one of you picking up the ball and taking the next >> step. I'll make myself available to answer any questions either by >> email or by conference call, and I know the rest of the board will >> extend the same offer. >> Best of luck with your selection process. We're looking forward to >> bringing it all together. >> >> Thanks, >> Jonathan >> -- >> You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see >> http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
