From Fedora Project Wiki
(ok, we really just use this page for discussion)
(Move over Yn1v's comments from the main page and respond to them.)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Filling Vacant Seats ===
+
== Candidates ==
 +
* ''Candidates must self-nominate at least three days before the election opens by writing their information onto the wiki.'' I suggest that wiki editing is closed on this dead line, so people have to make complete submision before dead line. The nomination have to follow one explicite order; either alphabetically or cronologically. I am not in favor or any rule, but I like to have a guideline for that --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
** Making the wiki page immutable makes sense, however it is a technical requirement that does not need be to codified in the policy. I don't think the order really matters either. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  
At Blacksburg we already agreed on not filling up the vacant seeds with runner-up candidates from the previous election ''according to their rank in the voting''. [[JohnRose]] proposed to simply appoint vacant seats, this is also what the board does. [[ChristophWickert]] however would like to have the runner-up candidates ''considered'' first. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
+
== Filling Vacant Seats ==
 +
 
 +
* At Blacksburg we already agreed on not filling up the vacant seeds with runner-up candidates from the previous election ''according to their rank in the voting''. [[JohnRose]] proposed to simply appoint vacant seats, this is also what the board does. [[ChristophWickert]] however would like to have the runner-up candidates ''considered'' first. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  
 
== Misconduct ==
 
== Misconduct ==
* In order to remove somebody, do we need an unanimous vote or only an absolute majority?
+
* In order to remove somebody, do we need an unanimous vote or only an absolute majority? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 
* Should removed members be excluded from the next elections? The current rules include: ''If an election becomes necessary upon member removal, the member cannot run for this election, but the removed member CAN run for the next orderly election.'' --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 
* Should removed members be excluded from the next elections? The current rules include: ''If an election becomes necessary upon member removal, the member cannot run for this election, but the removed member CAN run for the next orderly election.'' --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 +
* I think that we need a working definition of what is repeated absence --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
** At Blacksburg we were in favor of not giving a definition, we even considered to go with only the term ''serious misconduct or negligence'' because repeated absence is a form os misconduct, too. I doubt that a clear definition will help us here. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  
 
== Reminders ==  
 
== Reminders ==  
FESCo policy claims: "A reminder mail to those who are eligible to vote but haven't done so will be sent three days before the close of the election." Do we really do this? I don't know because I always vote on time. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
+
* FESCo policy claims: ''"A reminder mail to those who are eligible to vote but haven't done so will be sent three days before the close of the election."'' Do we really do this? I don't know because I always vote on time. --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 +
** I remember reading this kind of emails sent from the election wrangler --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
*** And how does the election wrangler know who voted or not? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  
 
== Too long ==
 
== Too long ==
  
 
I wonder if the whole beast id becoming too long and if some parts overlap, e.g. parts of 'Members' with 'Filling Vacant Seats'.. The Board's guidelines are short and straight forward. Should we rather base our guidelines on them rather than on on FESCo's? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 
I wonder if the whole beast id becoming too long and if some parts overlap, e.g. parts of 'Members' with 'Filling Vacant Seats'.. The Board's guidelines are short and straight forward. Should we rather base our guidelines on them rather than on on FESCo's? --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Embargoed countries ==
 +
* We may consider that resident is best word that citizen? If you are citizien from X living abroad that makes you non eligible? In the other hand, if you are living in X no matter your citinzenship most likely there will be problems --[[User:Yn1v|Yn1v]] 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 +
** I think this is a legal problem and I guess that ''citizen'' is more accurate. Say you are an American living in an embargoed country, that shouldn't be a problem. Let's ask Spot! --[[User:Cwickert|Cwickert]] 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:45, 1 February 2012

Candidates

  • Candidates must self-nominate at least three days before the election opens by writing their information onto the wiki. I suggest that wiki editing is closed on this dead line, so people have to make complete submision before dead line. The nomination have to follow one explicite order; either alphabetically or cronologically. I am not in favor or any rule, but I like to have a guideline for that --Yn1v 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Making the wiki page immutable makes sense, however it is a technical requirement that does not need be to codified in the policy. I don't think the order really matters either. --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Filling Vacant Seats

  • At Blacksburg we already agreed on not filling up the vacant seeds with runner-up candidates from the previous election according to their rank in the voting. JohnRose proposed to simply appoint vacant seats, this is also what the board does. ChristophWickert however would like to have the runner-up candidates considered first. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Misconduct

  • In order to remove somebody, do we need an unanimous vote or only an absolute majority? --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Should removed members be excluded from the next elections? The current rules include: If an election becomes necessary upon member removal, the member cannot run for this election, but the removed member CAN run for the next orderly election. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that we need a working definition of what is repeated absence --Yn1v 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • At Blacksburg we were in favor of not giving a definition, we even considered to go with only the term serious misconduct or negligence because repeated absence is a form os misconduct, too. I doubt that a clear definition will help us here. --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminders

  • FESCo policy claims: "A reminder mail to those who are eligible to vote but haven't done so will be sent three days before the close of the election." Do we really do this? I don't know because I always vote on time. --Cwickert 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I remember reading this kind of emails sent from the election wrangler --Yn1v 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
      • And how does the election wrangler know who voted or not? --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Too long

I wonder if the whole beast id becoming too long and if some parts overlap, e.g. parts of 'Members' with 'Filling Vacant Seats'.. The Board's guidelines are short and straight forward. Should we rather base our guidelines on them rather than on on FESCo's? --Cwickert 23:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Embargoed countries

  • We may consider that resident is best word that citizen? If you are citizien from X living abroad that makes you non eligible? In the other hand, if you are living in X no matter your citinzenship most likely there will be problems --Yn1v 15:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think this is a legal problem and I guess that citizen is more accurate. Say you are an American living in an embargoed country, that shouldn't be a problem. Let's ask Spot! --Cwickert 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)