Election Plan and Timeline #2
Comments
|
@lsilen @dutc checking in with you that a July 1st outcome of elections seems reasonable. This feels like a long time to me, but it also seems about as fast as is possible given the mandated timings in the Board-provided election procedure. (This timeline is actually pretty optimistic and assumes that nothing goes wrong.) |
|
I would love to see elections wrapped up sooner. What about -
|
|
Yeah, so to be clear, there are a few delays currently mandated in the board document
I'm totally happy to push back on those though (and it sounds like you are too, given your proposed schedule). Let's see if we can get even more aggressive.
If we're ok changing mandates that schedule seems aggressive-but-doable to me. However, maybe you're mostly targetting the June 14th board meeting. Is that correct? Is the target here really just "get results to the board by June 14th? a couple weeks earlier doesn't really help us?" |
|
No problem adjusting the timeline outlined in the procedures doc. I wasn't targeting the 6/14 brd mtg, the dates just happened to align. There's also a meeting on 5/17 which works with this schedule. |
But like 90% of people will be in town, right? I don't feel the need to ensure 100% or even 90% participation. It may be that some people are sad that they weren't around for voting, but some sad people are probably inevitable with any path we might take. |
|
(but in general I agree with making some space for committee members to weigh in) |
|
This may be a silly question, but why do people have to be in town to have a say? NumFocus is run remotely the majority of the time right? Why would this be any different? |
|
I think one thing worth clarifying here, is from a voter perspective, when will the ballot be finalized. Part of the charge of the election committee from the board is to "screen" or "vet" candidates prior to getting them applications. Would it make sense to then advertise the candidates as soon as they deemed eligible for the election, basically simultaneous to
Because otherwise if we wait until applications are due, then there's not really any time before the election starts for people to learn who the candidates are. I think announcing the candidates as soon as possible would also help with
Because then we make it close to a month from knowing who the candidates are until the last moment you can cast a vote for them. I can see how two weeks for the whole election can seem cramped, whereas if it is recast as two weeks to cast a vote, after two weeks of knowing who the candidates are, it's is less onerous on the voters. |
|
OK, so the proposal here would be a rolling review process, where once someone comes in, we look at them, say "yup, looks like a reasonable candidate" and then add them to a list somewhere Maybe we also give them an opportunity to immediately fill out an application so that that information goes wherever we list them? This gives an advantage to people who are nominated early, but maybe that's ok. We don't allow for any voting until we've closed nominations and collected applications properly. |
|
Oh wait, you're not suggesting rolling releases of candidates, just proactive screening. That seems fine with me. It's a question of how well we can commit to screening people quickly. |
|
What do we need before the nomination to be opened? Then we know when we can kick start the process. |
|
Copying a comment from Slack Reminder if people have time to take a look at the issues above (thanks those who have)
The nomination process takes weeks, so starting it sooner rather than later would be good. We can work on other pieces while that's going on.
|
|
@dutc you mentioned in the meeting that you preferred a longer nomination period because ...
My sense from the meeting is that @lsilen disagrees with point 1 (we need to move faster than a July date) and with point 2 (historically most nominations have come in the first week). Do you agree with these points? Do you have other concerns about a two-week nomination cycle? |
|
Here is an updated proposed schedule. It maintains a 2-week nomination period.
I expect that we'll end up pushing back one of these phases, and actually land with a result on the first week of June. Any thoughts or objections to this plan? |
|
This schedule looks good if the README content can be finalized by EOD tomorrow. |
|
We've had several delays since we started, here is the current tentative timeline we're following:
|
|
@all-contributors please add @Cheukting for mentoring |
|
I've put up a pull request to add @Cheukting! 🎉 |
I think that right now the plan is something like the following (taken from Board Election Procedure 2024:
A lot of the work here is also likely to be disseminating this information to the correct voting parties and annoying them sufficiently to ensure sufficiently high participation.
Am I missing anything here?
Edit (by @pavithraes): I've removed the dates from this first comment. Please see the latest comments on this issue for the most recent timeline.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: