Let us know how we are doing
Take the DCI Working Group's new survey!
Proposal: Add a vice-chair who can take over when the chair is not available. The first member to win the election is chair, the second is vice-chair.
This is a great idea. I also think it would be good to assign some additional responsibilities to the co-chair: for instance, maybe marshalling people who want to talk during a meeting or approving the official minutes.
If we approve this, I guess Dan is vice-chair then? That's totally fine with me.
I like the idea of being specific about additional responsibilities. Are there things outside of meetings that the chair has taken responsibility for in the past that it would be good to detail?
I think that co-chair should be a distinct election run at the same time.You can run for one or the other.
One of my concerns is that you want to make sure that the Chair is elected by the majority of the vote. If you are really running for Chair or co-Chair in the same vote, then you may have more people running and potentially less people voting for the winner. It could only require 5 votes to win in a 3 person race.
I also don't think that the co-Chair should default to someone just because they ran. Suppose in an election the Chair ended up with 10 votes. Should the other contestant (who most likely cast the single vote for themself) be a co-chair?
I don't understand what risks you are trying to convey.
" It could only require 5 votes to win in a 3 person race."
The Condorcet voting algorithm that we use is substantially more complicated than this. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method.
I'm actually fine with the "vice chair" defaulting to someone just because they ran, assuming only two people ran for chair. They were already elected to the TSC (and won), so they will have already had to win one election. Presumably they are running because they are willing to do the work and passionate about the job–something that people who aren't running are not expressing.
Ok. I was just trying to find an expedient solution but I see your point. Shouldn't the election for vice chair be run after the chair one though? This would allow people who didn't get to be chair to run for co-chair. I don't see any downside in that, do you?
Ok, I'm going to make a new proposal to try and get us moving forward:
Add a vice-chair who can take over when the chair is not available. The vice-chair will be chosen via a TSC election that is to take place once the chair has been elected.
Hey guys, I know we're used to programming computers who don't complain about how many instructions we send them, but even with automation, we should be striving here for simplicity in our processes and governance. Let's avoid extra loops through the election circuit - let's just have the vice chair be the second place winner in the election for chair.
If we are talking about a vice-chair, my personal take is that the chair can directly choose her or him. This is to have a coherent line of thoughts on how to drive the TSC, and does not require an additional round of elections. For instance, during the chair election, the candidates could also present their vices.
I agree with Brian and Arnaud, KISS. 2nd place should be vice-chair. We should codify this in the bylaws.
Powered by a free Atlassian Confluence Community License granted to The Linux Foundation. Evaluate Confluence today.