Re: Picking a new member - process
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> NOTE this is to the public list.
> So, I think the picking a new member conversation seems to be mostly
> done, and I think further relevant information isn't likely to be
> It's not clear whether we have consensus, but in any case rather than
> try to come up with a consensus on a single name I think in the
> interests of transparency it's probably best not to just come up out of
> the conclave with a single name to rubber-stamp.
> So we should hold a public vote.
> On the other hand I see no reason to list on the ballot candidates that
> no existing TC member feels we should be voting on. Doing so makes the
> slight to those candidates more formal and obvious.
> So I suggest the following process:
> 1. Someone sends a proposal to start off the public ctte nominations
> period. (Formally, they are proposing a TC resolution.) For a
> period of two weeks we will take public nominations from TC
> members of any candidates they think should be on the ballot.
> 2. We will then vote. The ballot will have each candidate on it,
> plus Further Discussion.
> FD will do double duty as RON. Placing a candidate below FD doesn't
> necessarily mean that they are unacceptable, just that the TC member
> would like to further explore their strengths and weaknesses before
> making a decision.
So, I think it's safe to say that this process has, so far, not worked.
Only two candidates have been put forward, one by Ian and one by myself.
I'll say here as well that I put forward one candidate as sort of an
experiment and desire to avoid putting forward too many candidates myself
and see what other people would do, not because I thought that was the
only acceptable candidate. Since then, unless I missed something, no one
else has replied.
That means we're going down the path of a private consensus, which has
issues as mentioned above, plus it's not clear to me that people have even
put forward all the names they're interested in voting on.
Perhaps we should revisit the possibility of simply voting on the whole
slate and hoping that people understand that a few people ranking people
below further discussion doesn't mean some sort of major slight and is, at
worst, a possible learning experience?
At the least, I think we should have a larger slate than we do right now,
although I'm hesitant to just put forward lots of names -- right now, I
feel like that would be undermining a process that we sort of agreed on,
and I don't want to do that without conensus.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>