Upcoming Council vote
77 views
Skip to first unread message
Gervase Markham
Feb 12, 2016, 2:37:37 PM2/12/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Hi everyone,
I'm just finalising the detailed process for the upcoming council vote,
which I hope to be able to share with you in a few days time. However,
it may be worth reiterating how the process has worked so far. As
explained in the email "Thunderbird: Paths Forward" on 17th December:
"The existing Council will serve as a nominating committee, and recruit
candidates who agree to serve on a renewed Council. (This could be
existing Council members or new people.) This slate of candidates would
then be presented to tb-planning for a single vote, much like the one a
year ago, to see if there is consensus."
That is what has happened - the existing Council has spoken to people
who are heavily involved in Thunderbird and setting its direction, and
has assembled a new Council from those in that group who were willing to
serve. That process is what led to the "proposed revised Thunderbird
Council" announced by Kent in a message to this group on 9th February.
There is no open nomination process. The vote will be either for or
against that proposed council, as a single group.
I look forward to sharing details of the voting process with you all in
due course.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
tb-pl...@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning
I'm just finalising the detailed process for the upcoming council vote,
which I hope to be able to share with you in a few days time. However,
it may be worth reiterating how the process has worked so far. As
explained in the email "Thunderbird: Paths Forward" on 17th December:
"The existing Council will serve as a nominating committee, and recruit
candidates who agree to serve on a renewed Council. (This could be
existing Council members or new people.) This slate of candidates would
then be presented to tb-planning for a single vote, much like the one a
year ago, to see if there is consensus."
That is what has happened - the existing Council has spoken to people
who are heavily involved in Thunderbird and setting its direction, and
has assembled a new Council from those in that group who were willing to
serve. That process is what led to the "proposed revised Thunderbird
Council" announced by Kent in a message to this group on 9th February.
There is no open nomination process. The vote will be either for or
against that proposed council, as a single group.
I look forward to sharing details of the voting process with you all in
due course.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
tb-planning mailing list
tb-pl...@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning
Joshua Cranmer 🐧
Feb 12, 2016, 7:54:05 PM2/12/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 2/12/2016 6:19 PM, BA wrote:
> I disagree with your plan of ’no open nomination process’ here as this
> is not how the open source community should function or what it stands
> for. I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to any of the
> candidates but rather to your proposed process. I am sure all the
> candidates will agree that we all want to do what is best for the
> future of TB.
> If you want to elect a Thunderbird council that has legitimacy and credibility, this is not the way to go about it. Don’t we all want to choose from a pool of most qualified and dedicated contributors (past as well as present) to serve on the new TB council who are committed to grow TB and re-energize TB development? I strongly believe an open nomination process is the most credible and productive course to achieve this.
>
> A pre-selected group with an 'all or nothing' vote is not a good approach. An open nomination process with a subsequent vote would empower the TB council. Can you please share the reasons why you want to narrow the field of contenders to the number of seats on the council? In my opinion, what you are proposing does not match the definition of an open, democratic and transparent election.
>
> I think you not only need to invite all the volunteers (past and present) who have contributed to Thunderbird to apply, but also not restrict this process in any way, shape or form. If you have only 9 candidates for 9 seats and you disallow an ‘open nomination process’ and with that limit the roster of volunteers from which the TB contributors can choose , then I do not see how this has anything to do with an open and democratic election process.
>
> Is not possible to benchmark the election process of TDF and other leading open source projects and thereby implement the new TB council election process accordingly ? We need a new TB council with unquestionable legitimacy for the upcoming critical decisions and the current suggested process will prevent that from happening.
> I disagree with your plan of ’no open nomination process’ here as this
> is not how the open source community should function or what it stands
> for. I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to any of the
> candidates but rather to your proposed process. I am sure all the
> candidates will agree that we all want to do what is best for the
> future of TB.
> If you want to elect a Thunderbird council that has legitimacy and credibility, this is not the way to go about it. Don’t we all want to choose from a pool of most qualified and dedicated contributors (past as well as present) to serve on the new TB council who are committed to grow TB and re-energize TB development? I strongly believe an open nomination process is the most credible and productive course to achieve this.
>
> A pre-selected group with an 'all or nothing' vote is not a good approach. An open nomination process with a subsequent vote would empower the TB council. Can you please share the reasons why you want to narrow the field of contenders to the number of seats on the council? In my opinion, what you are proposing does not match the definition of an open, democratic and transparent election.
>
> I think you not only need to invite all the volunteers (past and present) who have contributed to Thunderbird to apply, but also not restrict this process in any way, shape or form. If you have only 9 candidates for 9 seats and you disallow an ‘open nomination process’ and with that limit the roster of volunteers from which the TB contributors can choose , then I do not see how this has anything to do with an open and democratic election process.
>
> Is not possible to benchmark the election process of TDF and other leading open source projects and thereby implement the new TB council election process accordingly ? We need a new TB council with unquestionable legitimacy for the upcoming critical decisions and the current suggested process will prevent that from happening.
Of the open source projects I am familiar with, none of them have a
central administrative council that is fully elected by the userbase.
For example, the LLVM Foundation Foundation was appointed effectively by
itself (consisting of core developers of the project), Firefox is
managed by a corporation, and Debian by a council that appoints itself
but is subject to effectively a public recall. Python and Linux (and
pretty much every tiny software project, too) are effectively
dictatorships. This process is already far on the democratic side of the
spectrum merely by subjecting the council election to a wider vote. In
my experience, given the tendency I've seen for a lot of apathy on this
list, I don't think a more open nomination process would be any more
effective.
If you disagree with the process, you could simply just vote against the
slate of nominees regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
--
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist
Gervase Markham
Feb 13, 2016, 8:04:41 AM2/13/16
to BA, tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 13/02/16 00:19, BA wrote:
> I disagree with your plan of ’no open nomination process’ here as
> this is not how the open source community should function or what it
> stands for.
> I disagree with your plan of ’no open nomination process’ here as
> this is not how the open source community should function or what it
> stands for.
I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but that is what's going to happen.
This was explained in the email last year, and in person by me to both
you and Volker.
In a few months, Thunderbird is quite likely to move to a new
organizational home (or have a very different relationship with Mozilla)
and depending on what that organizational home is, they will require a
governance reform to match the way that projects in that organization
are governed. There is no point in having two major governance
reorganizations in the space of a few months. I believe this process is
a good compromise between continuing with an expired council, and a full
immediate governance reform.
I am satisfied that the Council has canvassed an appropriate set of
current core Thunderbird contributors to see who is willing to serve. I
don't believe that anyone in that set who wanted to serve has been denied.
> council? In my opinion, what you are proposing does not match the
> definition of an open, democratic and transparent election.
I very much hope the process is open and transparent (I will be posting
the exact process soon). As for democratic, well, Mozilla is not a
democracy and never has been; while there are many things about
democractic processes which are good and useful, being "as democratic as
possible" is not a goal.
BA
Feb 13, 2016, 8:07:00 AM2/13/16
to Gervase Markham, tb-pl...@mozilla.org, Mike Conley, R. Kent James, Philipp Kewisch
Hi Gerv,
On Feb 12, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> That process is what led to the "proposed revised Thunderbird
> Council" announced by Kent in a message to this group on 9th February.
> There is no open nomination process. The vote will be either for or
> against that proposed council, as a single group.
I think you not only need to invite all the volunteers (past and present) who have contributed to Thunderbird to apply, but also not restrict this process in any way, shape or form. If you have only 9 candidates for 9 seats and you disallow an ‘open nomination process’ and with that limit the roster of volunteers from which the TB contributors can choose , then I do not see how this has anything to do with an open and democratic election process.
Is not possible to benchmark the election process of TDF and other leading open source projects and thereby implement the new TB council election process accordingly ? We need a new TB council with unquestionable legitimacy for the upcoming critical decisions and the current suggested process will prevent that from happening.
Kind regards,
-Berna
—
Berna Alp, p≡p project
b...@pep-project.org
On Feb 12, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:
>
> That process is what led to the "proposed revised Thunderbird
> Council" announced by Kent in a message to this group on 9th February.
> There is no open nomination process. The vote will be either for or
> against that proposed council, as a single group.
I disagree with your plan of ’no open nomination process’ here as this is not how the open source community should function or what it stands for. I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to any of the candidates but rather to your proposed process. I am sure all the candidates will agree that we all want to do what is best for the future of TB.
If you want to elect a Thunderbird council that has legitimacy and credibility, this is not the way to go about it. Don’t we all want to choose from a pool of most qualified and dedicated contributors (past as well as present) to serve on the new TB council who are committed to grow TB and re-energize TB development? I strongly believe an open nomination process is the most credible and productive course to achieve this.
A pre-selected group with an 'all or nothing' vote is not a good approach. An open nomination process with a subsequent vote would empower the TB council. Can you please share the reasons why you want to narrow the field of contenders to the number of seats on the council? In my opinion, what you are proposing does not match the definition of an open, democratic and transparent election.
If you want to elect a Thunderbird council that has legitimacy and credibility, this is not the way to go about it. Don’t we all want to choose from a pool of most qualified and dedicated contributors (past as well as present) to serve on the new TB council who are committed to grow TB and re-energize TB development? I strongly believe an open nomination process is the most credible and productive course to achieve this.
I think you not only need to invite all the volunteers (past and present) who have contributed to Thunderbird to apply, but also not restrict this process in any way, shape or form. If you have only 9 candidates for 9 seats and you disallow an ‘open nomination process’ and with that limit the roster of volunteers from which the TB contributors can choose , then I do not see how this has anything to do with an open and democratic election process.
Is not possible to benchmark the election process of TDF and other leading open source projects and thereby implement the new TB council election process accordingly ? We need a new TB council with unquestionable legitimacy for the upcoming critical decisions and the current suggested process will prevent that from happening.
-Berna
—
Berna Alp, p≡p project
b...@pep-project.org
Ben Bucksch
Feb 15, 2016, 8:55:36 AM2/15/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
First off, thanks, Gerv, for giving Thunderbird attention and trying to
get us into calm and safe waters. I believe you have good motivations
and intentions, and I think you've helped Thunderbird a lot in the
background, without us knowing.
I have to disagree below, but it's on a factual basis only, not personal.
Gervase Markham wrote on 12.02.2016 20:37:
> There is no open nomination process. The vote will be either for or
> against that proposed council, as a single group.
I think this is highly problematic and invalidates the whole vote.
This "all or nothing" vote isn't really giving much of a choice. As you
stated yourself, a "No" would mean trouble, so arguably we have only one
reasonable choice: "Yes". Which means there is no real choice. I also
think it's fundamentally troublesome when a standing government
determines the new government. (!)
May I propose a slight alteration?
Instead of putting the entire Council for vote as an entirety, we could
propose a list of candidates (anybody who wishes would be on the list),
and we vote on each member (all in one go). No discussion about each
member allowed, just yes or no.
All other modalities - particularly who can vote (I don't know what you
have in mind) and how the votes are counted (simple majority I presume)
- would stay identical to your proposal.
I'd think that the votes would fall fairly clearly on either Yes or No
for most candidates. If in doubt, we'd err on "No".
Why this matters:
The fact that the council is interim is not very relevant, because this
council will decide on the future and fate of Thunderbird, so I'd argue
it's more important than more other councils will be.
The decisions soon to be made will decide about TB's technical future,
the future form of governance and legal home, and maybe most importantly
the future culture and spirit of Thunderbird. Will be it free and open
or governed behind the curtains? Will it be organized or a chaos group
without future planning? Who will make those plans, a close group or
will it include the wide community? Will it be open source in spirit or
only in license? These are delicate questions.
It's important that the people who make these key decisions are well
chosen and properly representing the future TB community.
I think my proposal is fairly simple, and only a small delay for
compiling nominations:
* Everybody can be nominated or nominate himself
* We compile a list of candidates
* Every voter votes on every candidate with a simple Yes/No, and also
picks a chairman.
* Voting body is the same as in your proposal (tb-planning subscribers
as of around end of Jan).
* The vote is secret, supervised by at least 2 independent persons, and
possibly conducted by software (there's probably lots of ready-made
survey web software we could use)
Ben
get us into calm and safe waters. I believe you have good motivations
and intentions, and I think you've helped Thunderbird a lot in the
background, without us knowing.
I have to disagree below, but it's on a factual basis only, not personal.
Gervase Markham wrote on 12.02.2016 20:37:
> There is no open nomination process. The vote will be either for or
> against that proposed council, as a single group.
This "all or nothing" vote isn't really giving much of a choice. As you
stated yourself, a "No" would mean trouble, so arguably we have only one
reasonable choice: "Yes". Which means there is no real choice. I also
think it's fundamentally troublesome when a standing government
determines the new government. (!)
May I propose a slight alteration?
Instead of putting the entire Council for vote as an entirety, we could
propose a list of candidates (anybody who wishes would be on the list),
and we vote on each member (all in one go). No discussion about each
member allowed, just yes or no.
All other modalities - particularly who can vote (I don't know what you
have in mind) and how the votes are counted (simple majority I presume)
- would stay identical to your proposal.
I'd think that the votes would fall fairly clearly on either Yes or No
for most candidates. If in doubt, we'd err on "No".
Why this matters:
The fact that the council is interim is not very relevant, because this
council will decide on the future and fate of Thunderbird, so I'd argue
it's more important than more other councils will be.
The decisions soon to be made will decide about TB's technical future,
the future form of governance and legal home, and maybe most importantly
the future culture and spirit of Thunderbird. Will be it free and open
or governed behind the curtains? Will it be organized or a chaos group
without future planning? Who will make those plans, a close group or
will it include the wide community? Will it be open source in spirit or
only in license? These are delicate questions.
It's important that the people who make these key decisions are well
chosen and properly representing the future TB community.
I think my proposal is fairly simple, and only a small delay for
compiling nominations:
* Everybody can be nominated or nominate himself
* We compile a list of candidates
* Every voter votes on every candidate with a simple Yes/No, and also
picks a chairman.
* Voting body is the same as in your proposal (tb-planning subscribers
as of around end of Jan).
* The vote is secret, supervised by at least 2 independent persons, and
possibly conducted by software (there's probably lots of ready-made
survey web software we could use)
Ben
Ben Bucksch
Feb 15, 2016, 9:05:55 AM2/15/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
BA wrote on 13.02.2016 01:19:
> I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to any of the candidates but rather to your proposed process.
ditto!
> I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to any of the candidates but rather to your proposed process.
Most of the proposed members are very sound and well-deserved.
> I think you not only need to invite all the volunteers (past and present) who have contributed to Thunderbird to apply, ...
Exactly.
Ben
Ben Bucksch
Feb 15, 2016, 9:06:24 AM2/15/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Gervase Markham wrote on 13.02.2016 14:04:
> I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but that is what's going to happen.
?
> I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but that is what's going to happen.
neandr
Feb 15, 2016, 1:18:02 PM2/15/16
to Ben Bucksch, tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Basically a +1 with Ben's ideas.
There are two points I disagree:
On 15.02.2016 14:55, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> * Everybody can be nominated or nominate himself
> * We compile a list of candidates
Because of the high complexity of the council work and a the different
skills required I disagree with 'nominate himself'. The skill and
reputation of a candidate should be well known by the community and so
"self-nomination" isn't a good idea.
How is "We" to compile the list? Is it required to compile it? Are there
such many "candidates" to possibly become a council member? I don't
think so. Beside the nomination each one of those nominates has to agree
to be on the list. So the "compile" will be done automatically with the
process.
Guenter
There are two points I disagree:
On 15.02.2016 14:55, Ben Bucksch wrote:
> * Everybody can be nominated or nominate himself
> * We compile a list of candidates
skills required I disagree with 'nominate himself'. The skill and
reputation of a candidate should be well known by the community and so
"self-nomination" isn't a good idea.
How is "We" to compile the list? Is it required to compile it? Are there
such many "candidates" to possibly become a council member? I don't
think so. Beside the nomination each one of those nominates has to agree
to be on the list. So the "compile" will be done automatically with the
process.
Guenter
BA
Feb 15, 2016, 4:31:00 PM2/15/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Dear Gerv,
I could not fathom, from your December e-mail, that the TB Council would not make a public call for volunteers or nominations. Sorry about that.
What I do not understand is, where you see this big difference in effort with respect to what you call major governance reorganization:
Current process:
a. Current council selects individuals to form the new council.
b. This group is presented as an all OR nothing election.
c. Everyone votes YES/NO
versus
Fully transparent and open process:
a. Post a call for nominations and volunteers on TB planning
b. Present a list of X candidates for an election of 9 positions
c. Everyone votes for 9 people of their choice
I think the only difference in effort between the 2 processes is about 15 more minutes in vote counting for the second process, and that would give the new TB council full transparency and legitimacy going forward and not allow any room for criticism.
Hence I do not understand what would lead us to chose the first process, which in addition has the big downside of creating a huge mess if the list is voted down. This outcome is avoided in the second process, because you will always have the people with the highest votes in place to carry on.
With that I rest my case.
Kind regards,
-B
—
ace
Feb 15, 2016, 5:19:52 PM2/15/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
In the current state of the project, it is often better to do
something quick, than to architect it overly broadly and "too
perfect". In the latter case, nothing gets done in the end.
Anyway, IF the community does not like the "Current process", it can
vote NO for the presented council. In that case I expect there is a
plan B, which probably is something like your "Fully transparent and
open process". But your assumption that this plan only takes 15
minutes more effort is completely unfounded and does not account for
the behaviour of our current community.
So as long as there is the way to reject the first proposed process
(by voting No), I see no problem with it.
aceman
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Upcoming Council vote
From: BA <b...@pep-project.org>
To: tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 22:05:34 +0100
> <mailto:b...@pep-project.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlbCSOMACgkQbqmMCC19m/UldgCeOBj32fcuwP9IL4JEr4yWWD5V
gFAAn3Sj92rhBxT2FBpOxU9x5CmWc0/Q
=pb6E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Gervase Markham
Feb 15, 2016, 10:32:07 PM2/15/16
to Ben Bucksch, tb-pl...@mozilla.org
Hi Ben,
Thank you for your kind words.
> This "all or nothing" vote isn't really giving much of a choice. As you
> stated yourself, a "No" would mean trouble, so arguably we have only one
> reasonable choice: "Yes". Which means there is no real choice.
I do think there is a choice; if enough of the Thunderbird community
objects to either the people or the process, or both, then the vote will
be No, and we will have a new process and (probably) a different set of
people.
I believe that the process chosen is the right one for this moment,
given all the different constraints and things we have to balance.
Members of the Thunderbird community are free to disagree by voting No.
Gerv
Thank you for your kind words.
> This "all or nothing" vote isn't really giving much of a choice. As you
> stated yourself, a "No" would mean trouble, so arguably we have only one
> reasonable choice: "Yes". Which means there is no real choice.
objects to either the people or the process, or both, then the vote will
be No, and we will have a new process and (probably) a different set of
people.
I believe that the process chosen is the right one for this moment,
given all the different constraints and things we have to balance.
Members of the Thunderbird community are free to disagree by voting No.
Gerv
Nathan Tuggy
Feb 16, 2016, 12:15:44 AM2/16/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 2016-02-15 15:05, BA wrote:
Current process:
a. Current council selects individuals to form the new council.
b. This group is presented as an all OR nothing election.
c. Everyone votes YES/NO
versus
Fully transparent and open process:
a. Post a call for nominations and volunteers on TB planning
b. Present a list of X candidates for an election of 9 positions
c. Everyone votes for 9 people of their choice
I think the only difference in effort between the 2 processes is about 15 more minutes in vote counting for the second process, and that would give the new TB council full transparency and legitimacy going forward and not allow any room for criticism.
Uh, the extra lag time to gather nominations, the extra list
discussion about nominations, the extra time taken by all list
members to pick out exactly who to vote for... none of those count
as additional effort?
Maybe it's warranted to go the extra mile and do a full democratic vote, but let's not kid ourselves: that's definitely a lot of extra time and effort.
Maybe it's warranted to go the extra mile and do a full democratic vote, but let's not kid ourselves: that's definitely a lot of extra time and effort.
-- Nathan Tuggy [:tuggyne] nat...@tuggycomputer.com
Tanstaafl
Feb 16, 2016, 3:14:18 PM2/16/16
to tb-pl...@mozilla.org
On 2/16/2016 12:09 AM, Nathan Tuggy <bugz...@nathan.tuggycomputer.com>
wrote:
job, so I think we should be thanking them and be grateful they are
willing to continue serving.
wrote:
> Uh, the extra lag time to gather nominations, the extra list discussion
> about nominations, the extra time taken by all list members to pick out
> exactly who to vote for... none of those count as additional effort?
>
> Maybe it's warranted to go the extra mile and do a full democratic vote,
> but let's not kid ourselves: that's definitely a lot of extra time and
> effort.
Exactly. Plus, the current people on the council have been doing a fine
> about nominations, the extra time taken by all list members to pick out
> exactly who to vote for... none of those count as additional effort?
>
> Maybe it's warranted to go the extra mile and do a full democratic vote,
> but let's not kid ourselves: that's definitely a lot of extra time and
> effort.
job, so I think we should be thanking them and be grateful they are
willing to continue serving.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages