The voters have elected:
Cees de Groot Marcus Denker Stephane Ducasse Bert Freudenberg Craig Latta Yoshiki Ohshima Tim Rowledge
157 votes were cast out of 347 authorized voters. Detailed election results are at http://tinyurl.com/gp4yz
Thanks candidates and voters.
Regards, Brent (on behalf of the Election Team)
Congratulations to all of you!
It was a tough decision, all the candidates are great people and have a distinct and valuable point of view on Squeak.
According to the web page, the overall winner is Tim. Tim, I believe this shows that most of us want your common sense and non-passionate analysis high on the decisions that are taken. And your sense of humor too. I hope we will benefit from your skills and experience.
I hope backing the board with the explicit support from the community will assure that Squeak is headed wherever the community prefers.
Cheers, Juan Vuletich
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Vukmer" brent.vukmer@gmail.com To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:40 AM Subject: Election results
The voters have elected:
Cees de Groot Marcus Denker Stephane Ducasse Bert Freudenberg Craig Latta Yoshiki Ohshima Tim Rowledge
157 votes were cast out of 347 authorized voters. Detailed election results are at http://tinyurl.com/gp4yz
Thanks candidates and voters.
Regards, Brent (on behalf of the Election Team)
Hi all!
(this is a personal reflection)
"Brent Vukmer" brent.vukmer@gmail.com wrote:
The voters have elected:
Cees de Groot Marcus Denker Stephane Ducasse Bert Freudenberg Craig Latta Yoshiki Ohshima Tim Rowledge
157 votes were cast out of 347 authorized voters. Detailed election results are at http://tinyurl.com/gp4yz
Thanks candidates and voters.
Indeed. Ok, so we only got 347 voters and 45% voted. On one side it is low (both numbers) and on the other side it is... well, it could be worse. :)
The specific result?
Well, I am guessing that voters might have focused on technical accomplishments (coding etc) in the Squeak community and perhaps forgotten that the number one task for the board (at least as we have considered it during this first year with establishing the Team model and so on) is coordination, coordination, coordination.
And given that, I personally think that Ken has done a superb job - both in various Teams with such duties (Janitors, Box admin etc) and during the short time he was on the board before this election (he took over keeping track of all Teams from me). Ken has also been a steady presence on IRC guiding newbies (and Craig is regularly there too) and synchronizing things with especially me and Cees.
So seeing Ken not among the first 7 is a bit "sad" given his dedication. But then of course, the new board will set the "rules" for the game of 2006-2007 and who knows how it will be played - 7 members is not something encarved in stone, and most of the Real Work is done in Teams anyway which are open to all (given that the Team model is still used by the new board of course).
Anyway, the way we will handle the "transfer" from the old board to the new is that for a period of time both the old members and the new will be on the board list together, and then the "drop outs" will be unsubscribed (at least this is what I think we should do).
In practice this means Craig, Tim, Yoshiki and Bert joins the list now and later me, Doug, Ken and Noury drops out of it.
During this short period I am foreseeing some discussion about how the board has worked and how it *will* work for the next year.
Again, I repeat - this is a *personal* reflection email from me - not from the old nor the new board. :)
regards, Göran
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 13:50 +0200, goran@krampe.se wrote: ...some very nice thing
Thank you Göran for your vote of encouragement. But actually I'm pretty happy to be able to turn to other things for a while. Right now I'm a little tired of the administrative stuff. I will continue my work with the box-admins and hopefully start doing some real work with the I/O Stewards team. Congratulations to the newly elected Board members (as well as those who were re-elected) and I wish you all success.
Who knows, maybe I will run again in the next election. It all depends on how things look in a year's time.
Ken
Hi Ken (and all)!
Ken Causey ken@kencausey.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 13:50 +0200, goran@krampe.se wrote: ...some very nice thing
Thank you G=F6ran for your vote of encouragement.
Well, you deserve it.
But actually I'm pretty happy to be able to turn to other things for a while. Right now I'm a little tired of the administrative stuff.
Hehe, same feeling here - so I definitely understand that! It will sure be nice to "only" be a member of this community.
I will continue my work with the box-admins and hopefully start doing some real work with the I/O Stewards team.
Sounds great. I will also try to focus on I/O and SM of course. And a bit on the web team. And of course be more active in maintaining a few packages like KomHttpServer etc. And, and, and... bah. :)
Congratulations to the newly elected Board members (as well as those who were re-elected) and I wish you all success.
Yes, congrats to you all from me too - in case I missed to say that. :)
regards, Göran
On 2/24/06, Ken Causey ken@kencausey.com wrote:
Thank you Göran for your vote of encouragement. But actually I'm pretty happy to be able to turn to other things for a while.
To be frank, I wouldn't have minded at all not to be re-elected :-). But still, I don't like this particular bit of the outcome at all - one of the hardest-working guys on the board didn't get re-elected. That means that either the community does not want hard-working people on the board, or - more likely - that there's a disconnect here. It'll be an important item on the agenda for the coming board to work on that.
On 26-Feb-06, at 12:00 PM, Cees De Groot wrote:
On 2/24/06, Ken Causey ken@kencausey.com wrote:
Thank you Göran for your vote of encouragement. But actually I'm pretty happy to be able to turn to other things for a while.
To be frank, I wouldn't have minded at all not to be re-elected :-). But still, I don't like this particular bit of the outcome at all - one of the hardest-working guys on the board didn't get re-elected. That means that either the community does not want hard-working people on the board, or - more likely - that there's a disconnect here.
The problem with any sort of democracy is that it essentially a popularity contest and hard work is rarely valued as it should be. Ken has done lots of important quiet behind the scenes stuff and I know from too much experience that that is never a way to look important.
Fortunately there is nothing whatsoever to prevent the board from listening to people not favoured by the voting mechanism, nor to stop good people from just getting on with helping.
The only privileges I can see for being on the board are the salary, the chauffeuse driven car and the apartment in Monaco.
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful random insult:- One flower short of an arrangement.
All,
There were two things that I didn't like about the election.
First, there should have been more written by the candidates about why they wanted to be on the board, and what they wanted to accomplish. (I believe Daniel pointed that out already)
Second, there was not enough support for candidates from existing board members. I would have liked to see write ups from board members and others supporting their favorite candidates. There are a number of people that I feel could have had a lot of influence on the election if they had actively supported candidates. It would have been helpful for people to come out and say who they supported and why.
Maybe during the next election there could be a debate, questions submitted to each candidate collated and presented as a platform comparison. We might also have individual pages where people could write comments so that we have a better idea of the current level of support that each candidate has from the community. Gauging the community support is a very important aspect of why each candidate should be elected.
I spent a great deal of time trying to encourage people to run (unsuccessfully). I also spent some time writing up a post to support my favorite candidates. I finally decided against sending it out because I didn't feel my standing in the community was strong enough for it to make a difference. Thinking back now I guess I should have sent it.
I think the board is made up of very good people. I can say also that Ken was instrumental in getting our cryptography group going and I would like to personally thank you Ken for your support and would hope that you continue to participate in this community no less then before.
We might also consider Board Member Emeritus status, which might include rights to the board list and encouragement to participate in discussions but with no voting rights. Just a thought.
Ron Teitelbaum President / Principal Software Engineer US Medical Record Specialists Ron@USMedRec.com Squeak Cryptography Team Leader Squeak News Team Member
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev- bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Cees De Groot Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 3:01 PM To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list Subject: Re: Election results
On 2/24/06, Ken Causey ken@kencausey.com wrote:
Thank you Göran for your vote of encouragement. But actually I'm pretty happy to be able to turn to other things for a while.
To be frank, I wouldn't have minded at all not to be re-elected :-). But still, I don't like this particular bit of the outcome at all - one of the hardest-working guys on the board didn't get re-elected. That means that either the community does not want hard-working people on the board, or - more likely - that there's a disconnect here. It'll be an important item on the agenda for the coming board to work on that.
On 2/27/06, Ron Teitelbaum Ron@usmedrec.com wrote:
There were two things that I didn't like about the election.
Thanks for the comments, Ron - most appreciated and I think you're right about the 'campaign' thing.
All: please spout your dissatisfaction with the elections here. Or say that you liked it just fine. It will provide very necessary feedback for the Elections team.
We might also consider Board Member Emeritus status, which might include rights to the board list and encouragement to participate in discussions but with no voting rights. Just a thought.
Agreed. I'd like the retired members to form a sort of advisory council, chiming in whenever asked or whenever they feel it's necessary. How exactly this will take shape, we'll need to see (for starters, the new emeritii need to accept the position ;-))
Hi all!
"Cees De Groot" cdegroot@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/06, Ron Teitelbaum Ron@usmedrec.com wrote:
There were two things that I didn't like about the election.
Thanks for the comments, Ron - most appreciated and I think you're right about the 'campaign' thing.
Yes. Since I was a current board member I didn't really feel that it was appropriate for me to express my views on the candidates. In retrospect - perhaps it would have been fine, I don't know. I felt it was very important that the squeak-dev community felt that this election really was proper and not in any way "tampered" with by the current board and its members.
All: please spout your dissatisfaction with the elections here. Or say that you liked it just fine. It will provide very necessary feedback for the Elections team.
We might also consider Board Member Emeritus status, which might include rights to the board list and encouragement to participate in discussions but with no voting rights. Just a thought.
Agreed. I'd like the retired members to form a sort of advisory council, chiming in whenever asked or whenever they feel it's necessary. How exactly this will take shape, we'll need to see (for starters, the new emeritii need to accept the position ;-))
We could have a separate board-emeritus list and the board could then CC to it whenever they feel they want to get feedback etc.
regards, Göran
We might also consider Board Member Emeritus status, which might include rights to the board list and encouragement to participate in discussions but with no voting rights. Just a thought.
We could have a separate board-emeritus list and the board could then CC to it whenever they feel they want to get feedback etc.
An "Emeritus Status"?.....Sorry, but look more as an attempt of perpetuity than other thing.
The board ever can share any tought or ask opinions about decisions with Squeak Community, not only with some Squeak members. I can imagine severals ways of take decisions and lead the community, but the worse IMHO is having a parallel "pseudo-board".
Just my opinion. gsa.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:59:29AM +0100, Cees De Groot wrote:
All: please spout your dissatisfaction with the elections here. Or say that you liked it just fine. It will provide very necessary feedback for the Elections team.
I liked it just fine.
Voters were worried about which of the good candidates to vote *for*, and nobody seemed worried about who to vote against. So I would say that a few good people did not win this time, and nobody lost.
The election was well run also. Thanks to the Elections team for putting it all together.
Dave
"Cees De Groot" cdegroot@gmail.com asked
All: please spout your dissatisfaction with the elections here. Or say that you liked it just fine. It will provide very necessary feedback for the Elections team.
I was most happy with the election.
From a personal perspective most of the people I voted for got in
The only criticism I have is that the process seemed a bit rushed. I know it wasn't actually - we all knew about the deadlines and dates long ago - and I think perhaps it felt rushed because of the last-minute request for some candidate platforms.
There's a simple solution: when candidates accept nominations (and these nominations should be accepted at least a month before the election date), they post their platform, either here on the list or SqueakPeople.
frank
2006/2/27, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@angband.za.org:
There's a simple solution: when candidates accept nominations (and these nominations should be accepted at least a month before the election date), they post their platform, either here on the list or SqueakPeople.
Yes, I agree. To know the plans of candidates will help in the decision of each voter.
gsa.
Thanks to all the candidates for running, and for being willing to serve. What a nice problem to have, an election where I like *all* the candidates.
I hope that the candidates who did not win this time will also consider running in the future. Being on the board looks like a lot of work and time commitment, and it's good to know that we have excellent people willing to do this.
Dave
Hi everybody
Several points: - Thanks
- Now I can tell you that I was thinking to drop everything in block. Even if we had fun with marcus and the previous board, the fact that people that I value decided to participate helped me and gave me energy and faith in SqF. I want to publicly thank them for that. - Been in the board implies for me more responsibilities than power. My goals are the same: improving squeak so that everybody can create his own future and creating a creative space for human developers :)
- Normally after election, politicians do not really listen anymore and I would like to do the inverse. I would really like to know what you expect or would like to see put in place. We have some ideas (bounty system, better process) and I will really listen what the new boarders want to do (I'm even eager to see that :)). So if you have some points that you would like to see happening please mention it.
Stef
PS: note that the board should be for me an enabler so I hope to enable you to do stuff for Squeak and you :)
PS: TX brent! Good job
"Brent Vukmer" brent.vukmer@gmail.com wrote:
The voters have elected:
Cees de Groot Marcus Denker Stephane Ducasse Bert Freudenberg Craig Latta Yoshiki Ohshima Tim Rowledge
157 votes were cast out of 347 authorized voters. Detailed election results are at http://tinyurl.com/gp4yz
Thanks candidates and voters.
Well done, Brent! Thank you very much for making that election happen. It was a very important step for the Squeak community!
Regards, Bernhard
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bernhard Pieber -
Brent Vukmer -
Cees De Groot -
David T. Lewis -
Frank Shearar -
Germán Arduino -
goran＠krampe.se -
Juan Vuletich -
Ken Causey -
Ron Teitelbaum -
stéphane ducasse -
tim Rowledge