[FAmSCo] Fwd: FAmSCo chair election.

Christoph Wickert christoph.wickert at gmail.com
Wed Mar 9 13:40:06 UTC 2016


2016-03-08 1:57 GMT+01:00 Giannis Konstantinidis <giannis at konstantinidis.cc>:

> Part of that e-mail is from our private communication. Nothing sensitive or
> whatsoever included, but next time I would appreciate If you respect my
> privacy and ask for my permission before forwarding it to a public list.

That is not correct, I responded to your public mail to the list, but
accidentally in private (Reply vs. Reply all). I later re-sent the
very same mail to the list. Neither that mail nor yours was private.

> As I briefly mentioned during the previous meeting, technically, no-one has
> ever nominated you.

Well, at least somebody suggested me in in the relevant meeting on
January 27th. You could argue that technically this was not a
nomination (I never accepted it, nor was I asked), but technically we
did not even have a call for nominations or a nomination period.

And again, it's not about me. I'm not keen to become chair, but I
think that both the voting and the current situation are
dissatisfying.

> You can verify that by taking a closer look to the past
> meeting logs.

I'd love to, I think I read most of them, but I had a hard time
finding the some logs, e.g. of January 20th. Whoever wants to be chair
should make sure all meetings are properly logged and logs are sent
out to the relevant mailing list and linked form the wiki. People who
cannot attend the meetings rely on that info. It's hard to complain
about inactive people if there is no easy way to catch up with FAmSCo
business.

> Please don't confuse being active in the past vs. being active during this
> term.

Sure, but the projects we are working on don't disappear over night.

> Meanwhile, others agreed we should look for a new slot. If you want to
> take over the lead, please be so kind as to set up a new poll or come
> up with a different solution.
>
> I would have started a poll. I have just noticed that you opened one, thanks
> for stepping up and helping with this.

No problem, you are welcome.

History tells me we will need several iteration of this poll before we
find a slot. In the meantime, or if we don't fine one, we continue
with the old one.

> > According to the log there were 4 famsco members in the meeting. There
> > is an unwritten rule that you don't elect yourself but get elected.
> > You restrain from voting for yourself, that's why in the past, we
> > always had a quorum of 50% + 1 vote. While this is not an official
> > guideline whatsoever, this quorum is common sense but was not met.
>
> Potty stepped down as a candidate, which made me the only other candidate
> left.

I know, It's a pity. I would have supported Potty. But it's just one
more reason why I consider the process questionable.

> > Pro-tip: Please don't ask people for their views in one sentence and
> > give your personal opinion in the next. It will influence others.
>
> That's very relative.

I'd argue it's a scientifically proven fact, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_effect_%28psychology%29

If you are still not satisfied with some other decision,
> please let us all know and we will look into it.

I've explained my points over and over and I feel you did not really
address them. But there is no use in arguing, I would love to hear
what other FAmSCo members think.

As far as I can see, we have several options now:
1. Continue with the current leadership.
2. Reopen the election and allow me to vote for potty. This would make
him chair.
3. Have a new chair election and make sure we have a proper
nominations and meet a quorum of 50% +1.
4. Dissolve FAmSCo. This should ultimately be the last resort as we
overthrow a democratic election. IMHO we need stronger reasons than
the meeting time or the chairs to do this.

Comments, questions, thoughts?

Best regards,
Christoph


More information about the famsco mailing list