|
2012-09-17
, 21:15
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#32
|
|
2012-09-17
, 21:59
|
|
Posts: 1,625 |
Thanked: 998 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
|
#33
|
Also of note:
As of yesterday, nominations are open. While your comments on nomination and such are appreciated here, to be official you must submit the nomination to the community mailing list.
|
2012-09-18
, 09:26
|
Moderator |
Posts: 5,320 |
Thanked: 4,464 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#34
|
The Karma process is designed to track participation, not just in the forums but in other arenas as well. In fact, giving Karma for participation in the forums was more of an afterthought, since the other services and tools existed before Maemo.org had a forum. (TMO was actually pulled into the existing structure, and before that had been it's own forum, with a separate name.)
This is not true at all. The time frame is 3 months, which considering there are elections every 6 months, is about half the term. The requirements of 10 Karma to vote are actually quite low. (The 100 Karma requirement is to run for office, not to vote.)
All of the requirements were designed to ensure that people running for positions, and those electing them, were valid and real people with at least a few months of knowledge and experience. Without this, anyone could simply create a bunch of fake accounts the day of the election and cast tons of ballots.
The wording, if you read it, was that we had hopped to have a stable version in place by the 17th, to allow those considering nomination a clear view of their expected role.
As for the number of people being elected, that can vary. For Council, the number is either 5, or in a special case as few as 3. For the Board, the same process is being used for this cycle. Future cycles will be determined as set forth in the bylaws.
On this we disagree. While I would note that taking both roles would consume a large amount of personal time, I see no reason to bar one person from holding two seats. In fact, there could be some advantage in having at least one member who is dual-seated. The roles of the two bodies are quite different though, so finding a person who is qualified in both fields will not be as common.
Agreed. But at the same time the pool of potential candidates is also shrinking. Which would you prefer to see? One person taking two roles, or one taking a single role and having the second role go to someone less qualified, or that only a few people voted for, or perhaps even left empty? The reason the rules for the number being elected are structured they way they are is in part to prevent a defacto election to Council of all those on the ballot if there are only 4 or 5.
The election rules have been in place for quite a long time. These are not something we pulled out of a hat recently.
These election rules have served the community well for some time. This, in part, is why the Board is using/cloning these rules as best it can. It's a known working and validated system.
The Following User Says Thank You to jalyst For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-09-18
, 16:56
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#35
|
i take it that the list of eligible members comes from this list up to asys3 on page 25...
is there already a nomination close?
|
2012-09-18
, 17:00
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#36
|
Oh I read it, these things can sometime be open to interpretation, which is why I sought clarification, no slight intended whatsoever.
It's a question of exactly how it all evolves/unfolds isn't it....
In an ideal world we'd have no one doing dual roles except for maybe one (debatable IMO), & they'd all be suitable for their positions & have popular support.
The Following User Says Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-09-18
, 17:08
|
Moderator |
Posts: 5,320 |
Thanked: 4,464 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#37
|
|
2012-09-19
, 20:34
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#38
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-09-19
, 20:37
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#39
|
On a side note: There may, in the not so distant future, be a problem with generating Karma as it stands today. Depending on what parts of the system migrate, and how that all works, Karma may have to be changed, or a new method determined.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-09-20
, 00:49
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#40
|
Shouldn't we explicitly not make it a (conditional/temporary) rule after things are much clearer? Night.
I would encourage everyone in the community to let that kernel sink into their mind, and begin considering alternatives to the Karma system. One of the roles of the next Council may in fact be to find or invent a replacement for Karma, and fix the existing Council rules (via referendum) before the next election cycle.
Karma is actually a really well thought out system, even if it's implementation has "issues" at times. It helps prevent duplicate accounts/votes, and provides a reasonable measuring stick, both to inform users of the level of contribution to the community, and to set minimums for participation in some activities. It would not be easy to replace if part of it were no longer computable, or available for use...
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014