Call for Votes: Steering Group Seeding

[Elias Bizannes]

Dear colleagues,

This e-mail is to update you on proceedings.

As determined at the last teleconference[1], and announced publicly on
this list[2], subscribers on this mailing list had the opportunity to
put together proposals for how the Steering members are seeded. This
is effectively the last piece of the governance model that needs
ratification, and once decided, we can formally execute the governance
model.

As of July 7th 00:01 GMT, submissions have been closed. There are now
five proposals on the table, and the proposal with the most support
will be adopted as the option going forward.

You can read the proposals here: http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/wIYj

Please be aware, that this vote is more on the principle (ie,
election, appointment, etc) rather than specific details. If for
example, the election option is the winner - the actual details of how
that election will run will be determined as a group next. Drummond
for example with Brett's support, has raised points about the number
of votes someone has as a modification of Steve's proposal - whether
two (Steve's view), six (suggested by Vanasco), or simply the
equivalent amount of seats being elected (Drummond amendment). These
details will be determined by consensus, with a separate vote if we
have to if we don't reach rough consensus. However, going back to the
point I wish to raise - each of these proposals are fundamentally
different, so this vote is more about the approach (ie, do we have the
co-founders seed the group, regular participants or elected
participants, etc).

So with that said, the next point of action is for you to vote on the
approach of how we seed the initial Steering group. As determined at
the meeting, votes via mailing list will be accepted until July 9th at
2400 GMT - alternatively, you can attend the special teleconference at
July 9th 2300 GMT to place your vote.

Please state a vote for ONE of the proposals to THIS THREAD. Please
also include any additional commentary on your vote, for example,
qualifiers - so that this can guide future discussion on how we
implement the solution.

In essence, the vote will be about: will the seed members of steering
be
- people who have attended x teleconference calls between y and x
- people who are identified as the co-founders of the community
- people who participate in an election process and win the most votes
- a hybrid of elections and the founders
- a hybrid of the teleconference members and the founders

CONSEQUENCE
Once we determine who the seed voting members of the Steering group
are, that will operationalise the governance model. This for example,
will empower these newly appointed individuals to formally define a
process going forward of future steering members and making amendments
to the governance model where weaknesses have already been defined.

If further clarification is needed, please communicate on this thread.
If you decide to place a vote on this thread, your *latest* submitted
vote within the permitted time, will be the one that stands (to give
people the opportunity to change their vote if swayed by arguments).

[1] http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/hYYj
[2]http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilityactionsteering/
browse_thread/thread/b17b0f1985856514

[danbri]

From http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/Steering+Group+Seeding+Options
I prefer:

Option C: Steering Group Members are Elected by Plenary

cheers,

Dan

On Jul 8, 12:34 pm, Elias Bizannes <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> This e-mail is to update you on proceedings.

> So with that said, the next point of action is for you to vote on the
> approach of how we seed the initial Steering group. As determined at
> the meeting, votes via mailing list will be accepted until July 9th at
> 2400 GMT - alternatively, you can attend the special teleconference at
> July 9th 2300 GMT to place your vote.
>
> Please state a vote for ONE of the proposals to THIS THREAD. Please
> also include any additional commentary on your vote, for example,
> qualifiers - so that this can guide future discussion on how we
> implement the solution.

[Phil Wolff]

Option C. Please.

I fully expect the founders to be nominated anyway and this opens
things up for campaigning. I'm eager to learn what candidates for the
steering committee envision as the future of dp.org, and their plans
for leading/guiding us there.

[Steven Greenberg]

I vote for Option C.

[Steve Repetti]

I vote for Option D -- it provides all the benefit of option C while
including a transition phase --- AND recognition to the founders!!!

[Brady]

One of the options, Option C, has two alternate voting methods
(Plenary members cast TWO ballots, or TWELVE ballots). Do we know
which alternative we are addressing?

Thanks so much,
Brady

[Elias Bizannes]

Brady - the original intention of this vote was on the concept of how
we seed the steering group. People have all stated their opinion but
did not make actual proposals, so I've come to view that as long as we
take an approach, we can work out the details as we roll it out. As it
stands, I wouldn't vote for Steve's election model because of trivial
details despite the fact I like the concept - by voting on the
principle, it allows us through baby steps to get closer to a
solution. If we hit any future roadblocks, we put another vote on an
contentious issue, but to be honest, I think the 'approach' is the
most contentious and most of everything else are minor.

So to answer to your question, and as I stated in my original post,
simply select the option and give clarification on why you voted as
such. So therefore you can vote the election option with a
qualification that individuals get 12 votes as per Drummond's
suggestion rather than the original proposal by Steve of two votes.

> > > browse_thread/thread/b17b0f1985856514- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Mike Smith]

I'll go for Option C.  For future discussion I'd opt for as many votes as there are positions being filled.  Prefer 2 year terms for "senate like" stability.  For initial election half could be elected for one year term, other half for two year term.

Mike Smith - dominoconsultant

---

> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 04:34:59 -0700
> Subject: [DP.AG.Steering] Call for Votes: Steering Group Seeding
> From: elias.b...@gmail.com
> To: dataportabilit...@googlegroups.com

[Elias Bizannes]

I believe an election model needs more work, but at the same time,
this governance framework whilst valuable in the long term, is
creating short term costs and going down a full election will further
push us back. Therefore an option with a strong initial group like the
founders will give us momentum with the people who have been driving
DataPortability from day dot. Although as Steve says, this is from the
transition period as in principle I favour the election approach. By
aknowleding the co-founders as the initial members, it will give
authority to act decisively whilst we work out a longer term
solutions.

I personally believe that people that have worked with me to date know
I have the best intentions, so if I was to be placed as a seeding
member in my capacity as a co-founder, they could trust me to not
manipulate the governance model to prevent future elections. However I
also recognise some people are cynical, which is why binding the co-
founders to a future election model, will clear any doubt.

For that reason, I'm voting for Option D. With regards to the election
component, I believe two votes are not enough and should be closer to
what Drummond proposed, but this is something the co-founders in their
capacity as seed members can implement with consultation of the
community so I am not too hung up on this for now.

[Drummond Reed]

I vote for option C. With regard to number of votes, I prefer each voter
have as many votes as there are open seats.

Best,

=Drummond

[Ben Metcalfe]

I vote for Option D - Steering Group is Seeded with the Founders +
Members Elected by Plenary

I'm mindful that (as far as I'm aware) Marjolein Hoestra has somewhat
'resigned' from the group and I need to re-evaluate my commitments in
the face of my other business activities - but aside from us two, the
rest of the founders very much deserve to be on that board*. Whilst
it might be true that they "will probably be elected" it's not a
certainty and I firmly believe it should be.

* = so does Marjolein, but currently she is not actively participating
so I'm guessing she will not take up the opportunity of a seat.

[Brett McDowell]

I vote for option C.

I also prefer each voter have as many votes as there are open seats.

-- Brett

[melvster]

I vote for Option C. (No strong preference on either alternative)

Current Tally:

Option C: 7 votes
Option D: 3 votes
Others: 0 votes

[danielabarbosa]

I vote for option D.Which will provide for some consistency based on
work we have been doing over the last 8months and insure that new
leaders come forth as well. Since this is to seed and get things in
place that we badly need to move forward this hybrid approach I
believe will meet those objectives.
Once again my sincere thanks to the governance team for all the work
they continue to do. I look forward to this closing out-so we start
making some decisions and providing deliverables that the other
thousands of members in the discussions and announcements lists want
the Dataportability Project to accomplish as part of our original
mission that made them join up and announced that they to "wanted data
portability"
-daniela

[John Breslin]

C for me!

[Jon]

Option D would be my vote.

[J. Trent Adams]

I vote for Option C - with the provision of one vote per open seat
(thank you =Drummond) - as long as the vote can be held within short
order (e.g. 30 days).

Otherwise, if we can't hold the vote relatively quickly, I would vote
for Option D (which locks in a vote within 3 months).

To echo the standard sentiment, the end is near and we just need to
make a decision and move on.

- Trent

[Brady Brim-DeForest]

I vote for option C, with the caveat that the voter receives as many votes as there are open seats.

-Brady

[David]

I'd vote for option C as well.

David

[Elias Bizannes]

As counted on the steering call with half an hour to go:

Danbri: C
Phil Wolff: C
Steven Greenberg: C (2 votes option)
Steve Repetti: D
Elias Bizannes: D
Mike Smith: C
Drummond Reed: C (option of votes as many seats)
Ben Metcalfe" D
Brett McDowell: C
Melvster: C
Daniela Barbosa: D
John Breslin: C
Jon: D
Trent Adams: D (option of number of votes = seats)
Brady: C
David: C

Therefore c's = 9; d's = 6

[Bob Ngu]

I am not sure if my vote counts but if it does, I vote for C

[J. Trent Adams]

Elias -

You miscounted my vote [1].

I voted for Option C (with the =Drummond provision).

My back-up vote would be for D in case we couldn't hold a Plenary vote
quickly (which, based on the tenor of the group, I'm assuming we can).

I know you'd asked for a signing statement for clarity, but I
apologize if I wasn't clear.

- Trent

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilityactionsteering/msg/099f10ddb4e4c2b4?hl=en

[J. Trent Adams]

Elias -

Totally sorry I missed the call earlier... I just read through the
chat logs and it seems that it was held two hours early. The logs
indicate it was started at 21:00 GMT, and not 23:00 GMT as advertised:

> So with that said, the next point of action is for you to vote on the
> approach of how we seed the initial Steering group. As determined at
> the meeting, votes via mailing list will be accepted until July 9th at
> 2400 GMT - alternatively, you can attend the special teleconference at
> July 9th 2300 GMT to place your vote.

And:

http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/voYj

... and...

http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilityactionsteering/msg/34d1b066018d5d7c?hl=en

... just busting your chops now. It's no big deal... especially since
I appear to be the only one out of this particular loop.

Can I assume, though, that someone will update the wiki page with
minutes, attendance and make the recording available?

Thanks,
Trent

[Elias Bizannes]

Trent, apologies I miscounted you vote. Thanks!

I also made a mistake with the close of time, my mistake. Voting is
still open until 2400 GMT my sincerest apologies to you Trent because
I know you rescheduled your vacation to make it.

That means voting is still open for another 33 minutes

On Jul 10, 9:20 am, "J. Trent Adams" <jtrentad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Elias -
>
> Totally sorry I missed the call earlier... I just read through the
> chat logs and it seems that it was held two hours early.  The logs
> indicate it was started at 21:00 GMT, and not 23:00 GMT as advertised:
>
> > So with that said, the next point of action is for you to vote on the
> > approach of how we seed the initial Steering group. As determined at
> > the meeting, votes via mailing list will be accepted until July 9th at
> > 2400 GMT - alternatively, you can attend the special teleconference at
> > July 9th 2300 GMT to place your vote.
>
> And:
>
> http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/voYj
>
> ... and...
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilityactionsteering/msg/34d1...

[Elias Bizannes]

Damn it seems like I replied to myself when replyingf to this thread.
Attched is what I wrote a few hours ago:

------------

Updated
Dan Brickly: C

Phil Wolff: C
Steven Greenberg: C

Steve Repetti: D
Mike Smith: C
Elias Bizannes D
Drummond Reed: C

Ben Metcalfe: D
Brett McDowell: C
Melvster: C
Daniela Barbosa: D
John Breslin: C

Jon Cianciullo: D
J. Trent Adams: C
Brady Brim De-Forest: C
David Rudin: C
Bob Ngu: C
Chris Saad: Abstained (communicated in steering chatroom during the
call)

Tally
Option A: 0 (zero) votes
Option B: 0 (zero) votes
Option C: 12 (twelve) votes
Option D: 5 (five) votes
Abstained: 1 (one) person

As for meeting minutes and recording: we didn't record, and no minutes
are required as this was a special meeting purely to count the votes.
However I will document what we discussed about the conduct of the
election as that is relevant. I will do that in a few hours when I
have my lunch break.

Please check I have tallied the votes correct above.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Danny Ayers]

C for me.