Forum OpenACS Q&A: Fall OCT Election Results

Collapse
1: Fall OCT Election Results
Posted by Dave Bauer on 11/11/05 10:54 PM
The following people were electd to serve on the OCT for <strike>6 months</strike>12 months beginning November 3, 2005:

Dave Bauer
Don Baccus
Jeff Davis
Nick Carroll
Victor Manual Guerra Moran

Congratulations to those elected, and thank you to everyone who participated in the election. Details of the election are at https://openacs.org/oct-election/election?election%5fid=3

[edited by Dave Bauer to reflect correct 12 month term of OCT members.]

Collapse
2: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 1)
Posted by Dave Bauer on 11/11/05 11:04 PM
Correction. The term of OCT members is 12 months, the next election for the other 4 members of the OCT will occur in 6 months.
Collapse
3: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 1)
Posted by Andrew Piskorski on 11/12/05 09:40 AM
Only 33 people voted? That's half the number that voted in the spring.
Collapse
4: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 1)
Posted by Dave Bauer on 11/16/05 11:19 PM
Collapse
5: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 1)
Posted by Caroline Meeks on 11/17/05 12:39 AM
Last spring and last fall we had a page with statement from at least some of the candidates

https://openacs.org/governance/may2004ballot
https://openacs.org/governance/Oct2004/

I think we need to encourage this. We are getting more new people who are using OpenACS as part of thier jobs. I think we should try for each election to have a page explaining what the OCT is and a bio/statement of the candidates experience and afflications.

Collapse
6: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 1)
Posted by Matthew Burke on 11/17/05 02:05 AM
Caroline's got a good point. I had planned on voting this go around and had recalled seeing "position statements" for earlier elections. Since I wasn't as familiar as I would like with all the nominees this go around it would've been useful.

I had intended to look at the various candidates posting histories, but by the time I had a few spare minutes to do so, the election was over.

Collapse
7: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 1)
Posted by Nick Carroll on 11/17/05 02:52 AM
From memory, all eligible voters were sent emails last time. I can remember being sent a few emails last time, but didn't receive any this time around. Maybe that was the reason why there wasn't a very large voter turn out?
Collapse
8: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 1)
Posted by Malte Sussdorff on 11/17/05 08:14 AM
For the next election I'd like to propose a small change.

We have the nomination period. After the nomination period all nominated members have a one week period in which to withdraw *or* write a statement why they'd like to be a member of the OCT and what their main goals are for their term.

After this one week period, an email is send to all elligable voters with the statements attached and a "please vote now" message. A reminder e-mail should be send out three days before the end of the election to all those who did not vote yet.

Collapse
9: Re: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 8)
Posted by Andrew Piskorski on 11/18/05 08:24 PM
I agree with Matle, his proposed changes would definitely be an improvement. I also suggest an additional modification (which maybe Malte also meant but I'm not sure):

Each nominated candidate must either decline or accept by writing some sort of campaign statement. If any candiate does not write a statement by the deadline, he is automatically considered to have declined the nomination. There are no rules at all regarding the content of the statement, but it has to be something. A candidate may post his campaign statement any time between the beginning of nominations and the decline/accept deadline.

Why? Mostly because, in conjunction with Malte's proposal above, this should make the OCT elections and governance clearer and more visible, especially to new and potential members of the OpenACS community.

Collapse
10: Re: Fall OCT Election Results (response to 1)
Posted by Rocael Hernández Rizzardini on 11/21/05 07:11 PM
I agree with Malte & Andrew, actually, that way was done in previous elections ... now we need to require that as part of the process.