Steering Committee Vote

[Lila Fisch]

Hi,

as pointed out by AndyB [0]:
'The SC elections are actually rather overdue (I'm told that this rolls over on Friday, in fact)'

It is time for a new Steering Committee Vote.

Assuming we go with the same roles as currently, the following positions need to be filled:

- Community

- Engineering

- Events

- Public Interaction

- Schools and Mentoring

- Sponsor Interaction

If you are willing to go for one of these roles, please announce it here by 26th of January.

If you think more time is needed, request it in this thread please.

If you are unsure if you should stand for a post, feel free to contact me in private. If you'd rather talk to someone else, I am sure many other volunteers will be happy to discuss your plans/worries.

Cheers

lilafisch

[0] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/srobo/qkyUcML8fLQ/0iP4lNCI4QkJ

[Peter Law]

lilafisch wrote:
> It is time for a new Steering Committee Vote.

For more information on the Steering Committee and its role within
Student Robotics, please see the Commitee2 trac page:
https://www.studentrobotics.org/trac/wiki/Committee2

> Assuming we go with the same roles as currently, the following positions
> need to be filled:
>
> - Community
> - Engineering
> - Events
> - Public Interaction
> - Schools and Mentoring
> - Sponsor Interaction

For more information about the individual roles, though I'll admit the
page could usefully be expanded a bit, please see the SteeringRoles
trac page: https://www.studentrobotics.org/trac/wiki/Committee2/SteeringRoles

Thanks,
Peter

[Peter Law]

Hi,

I wrote:
> For more information about the individual roles, though I'll admit the
> page could usefully be expanded a bit, please see the SteeringRoles
> trac page: https://www.studentrobotics.org/trac/wiki/Committee2/SteeringRoles

I've just added a bunch more content here, based on what I've seen happen.
If those with experience of the roles could add some more detail that
would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
Peter

[Andy Busse]

Hi all,

On 13/01/2015 12:08, Lila Fisch wrote:
> If you are willing to go for one of these roles, please announce it
> here by 26th of January.
> If you think more time is needed, request it in this thread please.

I'd like to apply to you for the "Sponsor Interaction" role. I'll tell
you why in a separate thread.

I'm going to go with [candidate-sr2015] in the title, recommend other
applicants do the same for clarity.

Thanks,
Andy

[Harry Cutts]

Hi,

On Tuesday, 13 January 2015 12:08:05 UTC, lilafisch wrote:

It is time for a new Steering Committee Vote.

Can someone just remind us of who will be eligible to vote?

Thanks,

Harry Cutts

[Christopher Hewett]

On 18 January 2015 at 21:55, Harry Cutts <eterna...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can someone just remind us of who will be eligible to vote?

Thanks,

Harry Cutts

As on the page [1]

The following people are eligible to vote in Student Robotics elections:

1. Those who have posted to the mailing list within the 3 months immediately preceding the vote.
2. Those who have mentored at schools at least twice.

[1] https://www.studentrobotics.org/trac/wiki/Committee2#SRMembers

[Lila Fisch]

Hi all,

I decided to run for events. Following Andy's example, I will post under
[candidate-sr2015]

cheers
lilafisch

[Scarzybrook]

Hi,

On 13/01/15 12:08, Lila Fisch wrote:
> If you are willing to go for one of these roles, please announce it here
> by 26th of January.

Could I ask that people trying for one of the rolls do not criticise a
previous SC members actions in the roll. This does not have any bearing
on your own suitability for the roll and is therefore not an appropriate
part of the application.

Thanks,
Scarzy

[Alistair Lynn]

Hi Scarzy–

> Could I ask that people trying for one of the rolls do not criticise a previous SC members actions in the roll. This does not have any bearing on your own suitability for the roll and is therefore not an appropriate part of the application.

Regrettably, in a contested first-past-the-post election that's not
true. An election becomes a binary choice between two options, and the
positives of one carry equal weight to the negatives of the other.

Negative campaigning is often a necessary evil as a result, and
censorship[1] is unlikely to improve our position. It is much more
important that people are forward and honest about what they are
doing, the reasons they are applying, and the ramifications should
they win.

Alistair

[1] Censorship via social pressure rather than policy is still
censorship, as the BBC have often had to argue.

[Jon Bartlett]

Hi all,
I've decided to apply for the Schools and Mentoring role. I will
follow the convention and post an application under [candidate-sr2015]
tags.

Cheers,
Jon

> --
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Student Robotics" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to srobo+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tom Leese]

Hi,

I've decided to run for the Community role. As with others I will post as [candidate-sr2015].

Tom

[Peter Law]

Hi,

Scarzy wrote:
>> Could I ask that people trying for one of the rolls do not criticise a previous SC members actions in the roll.

Alistair wrote:
> Negative campaigning is often a necessary evil as a result,

While I had a similar reaction upon first reading Scarzy's post, I
mostly agree with him, and don't think that openly criticising others
in your own application is suitable.

The negatives you put forward (mainly those about it being a binary
choice) don't really apply until the previous candidate is applying
for another role, and even then are diminished until they are
competing for the same role again.

I think that:
* it should be possible to emphasise how you would do things
differently, without directly disparaging others
* it would be fine to challenge a person with what you perceive
as a bad track record if/when they do apply for a post

I believe this would keep things friendly without preventing any discussion.

Thanks,
Peter

[Lila Fisch]

Hi,

Scarzy wrote:
>> Could I ask that people trying for one of the rolls do not criticise a previous SC members actions in the roll.

Alistair wrote:
> Negative campaigning is often a necessary evil as a result,

While I had a similar reaction upon first reading Scarzy's post, I
mostly agree with him, and don't think that openly criticising others
in your own application is suitable.

Whilst I find the range of opinions interesting, should we not just leave it to the people applying how they choose to apply,

instead of predefining rules?

If someone questions the choices of an application, I'd propose they simply reply to that application and ask.

And to remove some of the 'friendly vagueness':

I can only assume that this is related to my application (maybe not, maybe others as well - who can tell?).

But of course, that is only guesswork, and off topic here.

If you have any questions/want me to explain anything about my application,

ask me in that thread, making the situation clear and giving me a chance to answer there.

cheers

lilafisch

[Lila Fisch]

Hi all,

the time for applying is ending soon,

after that we need a vote.

For this we need

a) a full list of people who are eligible[1]

b) a method of voting

c) a time line for the vote

a) the bit about people who posted in the last 3 months is quite easy,

however since mentoring seems to count for life that one might be difficult to sort out - are there any lists from previous years?

b) Could we have the voting run with a neutral third party?
AFAIK currently the server that is running our votes is only accessible to persons involved in the charity application. The application process has raised criticism and was not beneficial for trust amongst blueshirts.
I am not accusing anyone of manipulating votes, I believe nobody does.
However, the way from doubt to jokes and rumours is short and these vague things are hard to address. So I'd prefer having this awkward discussion now in the open.
Just on principle having votes with an impartial third party seems a good idea to me. Please post proposals - or other ideas for transparent votes - here.

​

c) Before the voting itself it might be good to leave a few days to question applicants. I'd propose to start the vote next week Sunday (1st of February)

and close it on Wednesday (4th of February). This is a quite short time but includes weekdays and weekends. With the discussion phase before it should be enough time to give everyone an opportunity to make up their mind and vote. We'd then soon have a valid committee again.

cheers
lilafisch

[1] I believe that's the word to describe people are allowed to vote...

[Murray Colpman]

On 23/01/15 13:40, Lila Fisch wrote:
> ​
> c) Before the voting itself it might be good to leave a few days to
> question applicants. I'd propose to start the vote next week Sunday
> (1st of February)
> and close it on Wednesday (4th of February). This is a quite short
> time but includes weekdays and weekends. With the discussion phase
> before it should be enough time to give everyone an opportunity to
> make up their mind and vote. We'd then soon have a valid committee again.

This is invalid, the vote has to be open for at least a week[0].

Murray Colpman.

[0] https://www.studentrobotics.org/trac/wiki/Committee2

[Murray Colpman]

On 23/01/15 13:40, Lila Fisch wrote:
>

> c) Before the voting itself it might be good to leave a few days to
> question applicants. I'd propose to start the vote next week Sunday
> (1st of February)
> and close it on Wednesday (4th of February). This is a quite short
> time but includes weekdays and weekends. With the discussion phase
> before it should be enough time to give everyone an opportunity to
> make up their mind and vote. We'd then soon have a valid committee again.

Er, apologies, I'm wrong, that's only for changing of the committee
structure. I would still suggest a week-long vote, though, since that's
what we've always had.

Murray.

[Andrew]

Is the plan still to close applications on the 26th?

Andy

[Peter Law]

lilafisch wrote:
> a) the bit about people who posted in the last 3 months is quite easy,
> however since mentoring seems to count for life that one might be difficult
> to sort out - are there any lists from previous years?

I don't know that we've ever put in place any restriction in the past
-- simply relying on honesty from those with accounts. It would be
fairly easy to configure though I expect.

> b) Could we have the voting run with a neutral third party?

Please define neutral? How far outside the scope of SR do you want to
go? Would someone not running for a position count?

> AFAIK currently the server that is running our votes is only accessible to
> persons involved in the charity application.

There are other people with access to the server.

The voting system internally records who has voted, and what they
voted for. This is primarily so that you can change your mind later,
but I believe it will also as a result let you see what the system
currently thinks you're voting for.

There's a separate script which gets run to collate the results.

There are a number of cryptographic solutions in this space that I've
heard of. While I have no experience in using them, I imagine it's
probably rather complex to set them up.

> c) Before the voting itself it might be good to leave a few days to question
> applicants. I'd propose to start the vote next week Sunday (1st of February)
> and close it on Wednesday (4th of February).

In the past we've always allowed 7 days for voting, and I think
there's always been at least 7 days notice of the start of the period.
I'd be strongly in favour of gaps at least that big again.

Peter

[Peter Law]

lilafisch wrote:
> a) the bit about people who posted in the last 3 months is quite easy,
> however since mentoring seems to count for life that one might be difficult
> to sort out

I came across this again the other day and also thought it odd. While
I don't think it would be right to change it now, I do think that we
should look at changing this after the election. I'll aim to post
something about this then.

Peter

[Lila Fisch]

Hi,

I don't know that we've ever put in place any restriction in the past
-- simply relying on honesty from those with accounts. It would be
fairly easy to configure though I expect.

Assuming they all have accounts. I was not thinking about blocking people from voting

but about enabling/informing everyone who can vote.

> b) Could we have the voting run with a neutral third party?

Please define neutral? How far outside the scope of SR do you want to
go? Would someone not running for a position count?

I don't know. That is why I am opening this discussion.
How about something completely external? IIRC someone mentioned SUSU have a voting service.

In the past we've always allowed 7 days for voting, and I think
there's always been at least 7 days notice of the start of the period.
I'd be strongly in favour of gaps at least that big again.

Right, I assumed announcing that people can stand for committee was already the start of the notice that there will be a voting period soon. So let's stick with habit, voting starts Saturday (31.1.) 12:00 lunchtime and ends Saturday (7.2.) 12:00 lunchtime.

That puts a bit of pressure on the implementation of the voting, but as I understand it we have no valid committee at the moment which should be changed.

cheers,

lilafisch

[Murray Colpman]

On 23/01/15 20:39, Lila Fisch wrote:
> IIRC someone mentioned SUSU have a voting service.

Only for people with SUSU accounts (ie people who have at some point had
a Soton account and have logged into the SUSU website), so that won't work.

Murray.

[Sam Phippen]

Hi All,

I’d like to apply for the events role.

Thanks
—
Sam Phippen

[Rich Barlow]

Hi all,

On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 12:08 +0000, Lila Fisch wrote:
> If you are willing to go for one of these roles, please announce it
> here by 26th of January.

I'm nominating myself for the Engineering role.

Thanks,
Rich

[Jeremy Morse]

Hi,

I'd like to top post and nominate myself for the schools position.

[Rob Spanton]

Hi,

On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 12:08 +0000, Lila Fisch wrote:

> If you are willing to go for one of these roles, please announce it here by
> 26th of January.
> If you think more time is needed, request it in this thread please.

I'm going to apply for the sponsor interaction role.

Cheers,

Rob

[Peter Law]

Hi,

lilafisch wrote:
> If you are willing to go for one of these roles, please announce it here by
> 26th of January.

I'm standing for the Engineering role, as is customary I've put the
details in a separate thread [1].

Thanks,
Peter

[1] https://groups.google.com/d/topic/srobo/dR3_Cf7RMz0/discussion

[Harry Cutts]

Hi,

On Tuesday, 13 January 2015 12:08:05 UTC, lilafisch wrote:

If you are willing to go for one of these roles, please announce it here by 26th of January.

I am standing for Public Interaction. You can find my application in a separate thread [0].

Harry Cutts

[0] https://groups.google.com/d/topic/srobo/IFWIwkmuZOI/discussion

[Peter Law]

Hi,

lilafisch wrote:
> 'The SC elections are actually rather overdue (I'm told that this rolls over
> on Friday, in fact)'
>
> It is time for a new Steering Committee Vote.

A number of applications have now mentioned that they will resign at
some date, for various reasons. I'd therefore like to remind everyone
that the current maximum duration of the SC is 18 months [1], so the
next change-over period would not necessarily be during the
competition portion of the year, and may not be until the summer of
next year (2016).

Obviously elections could be held before then if it was felt that a
shorter term was preferable.

Peter

[1] https://www.studentrobotics.org/trac/wiki/Committee2#Steeringcommitteerules

[Lila Fisch]

Hi all,

this is a reminder that the voting will start tomorrow (Saturday) around lunch.

We are going ahead with our usual voting system,

thanks to Jeremy for arranging it.

cheers

lilafisch

[Jon Bartlett]

For any new volunteers, voting is open at srobo.org/voting. Log in
using your SR username and password. Good luck to all candidates!

Jon

[Peter Law]

Hi all,

This is a reminder that the vote (via http://srobo.org/voting) closes
at noon today.

Peter

[Jeremy Morse]

Hi,

On 07/02/15 08:34, Peter Law wrote:
> This is a reminder that the vote (via http://srobo.org/voting) closes
> at noon today.

The results, according to results.py in voting.git,

Community:
Tom Leese: 29 *
RON: 1
Engineering:
Peter Law: 14
Richard Barlow: 16 *
RON: 0
Events:
Lilafisch: 15 *
Sam Phippen: 15 *
RON: 0
Public Interaction:
Harry Cutts: 20 *
RON: 10
School interaction, mentoring and support:
Jeremy Morse: 20 *
Jon Bartlett: 10
RON: 0
Sponsor Interaction:
Andrew Busse: 13
Rob Spanton: 17 *
RON: 0

[Lila Fisch]

Well, that was a close one. Congratulations to the new committee.

cheers

lilafisch

[Lila Fisch]

wait.

I can't read. do we have a definition for a draw between sam and me?

[Jon Bartlett]

Congratulations to the winners! What happens with the tie for events?

Jon

[Lila Fisch]

Hi all,

this is a slightly odd situation.

I haven't talked to any of the people elected yet,

except for Harry.

The proper way would probably be to have a reelection for that post.
However I'd like SR to be able to move forwards, so I am considering
just stepping back.

This is an odd way of dealing with a draw, so in case I've overlooked anything: If anyone has concerns with this let me know by lunchtime tomorrow. I will make my decision then.

Last Wednesday showed me clearly that I personally don't agree with the direction the current SC is heading towards. I hope you all understand that as a consequence I will reduce the amount of energy I invest in SR significantly.

cheers
lilafisch

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Jon Bartlett <twos...@gmail.com> wrote:

Congratulations to the winners! What happens with the tie for events?

Jon

--

[Lila Fisch]

Hi,

The proper way would probably be to have a reelection for that post.
However I'd like SR to be able to move forwards, so I am considering
just stepping back.

Congratulations, Sam!

Please publish the date of the competition soon.

cheers
lilafisch