Difference between revisions of "Talk:Oversight Board"
m (update link)
|Line 2:||Line 2:|
== Elections proposal ==
== Elections proposal ==
Revision as of 11:04, 1 September 2009
SLOBs is a 7-person body with elections in August. It seems desirable to have approximately half the board's positions reelected each year in order to maintain some continuity of leadership, meaning (with two-year terms) we should be electing 3 or 4 people per year. However, the first round of elections in August 2008 didn't specify which of the elected people would turn over the next year. Walter Bender therefore proposed that all the SLOB positions be re-opened, with the 2009 elections instituting the 3/4 stagger (with either 3 or 4 of the positions being elected for 2 years, and the remainder for 1 year.)
Simple solution: have two elections (one for 2-year terms, one for 1-year terms), and allow people to run for one or both. Voting for both elections is done simultaneously, but the election results are tallied sequentially - first the 2-year term votes are tallied, and the top 3 candidates chosen to be 2-year SLOBs with terms expiring in 2011. The 3 selected candidates are then withdrawn from the second election (if applicable) and the 1-year term votes are then tallied. The top 4 candidates from that election are chosen as 1-year SLOBs with terms expiring in 2010.
Note that this system does not (yet) handle ties; proposals welcome. I think it's an unlikely case and am trying to minimize the need for re-voting, since there's evidence that this diminished the number of voters last time. Mchua 04:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Who runs the voting
Luke Faraone has proposed that the group Software in the Public Interest (SPI) run the election as a neutral third party, and they seem open to discussing the matter. Are there any other options we should consider?
Election tools and voting methods
If SPI is running the election, we should see if there are tools that they prefer, and if those tools are acceptable by SL.
The first election used Selectricity. Things to make sure of if we use selectricity again:
- candidate names are randomized on each ballot (to prevent alphabetical bias)
- candidate names on the ballot should be linked to or followed by position statements - or there should be some way to encourage, if not require, voters to either read position statements or talk directly with candidates before voting.
- other thoughts? add to list!
It is unclear when and how the Ombudsman, System Administrator, and Treasurer are selected.
This all assumes sufficient candidates to fill the board as well as sufficient voters for said voters to think the election process fair.