[Users] New Charter Proposal Change recommendation - Max 7 people to just state 7 people

[Barry De Graaff]

Hello David and Quanah,

The odd number was not for avoiding ties, our decision model is unanimous. 
That means that any mayor decision needs at least 3 positive votes and *zero* negative votes.

Max. 7 was decided upon as a number that would still allow us to be able to reach
decisions (as in having over 7 people in a conf call... is hard for example). Also 5-7
directors seem fair compared to the number of people ans work we do now.


Further info on the decision model, from the Charter:
More significant decisions are made through a process of full consensus. In order to pass, these decisions need three positive votes (+3) and no negative votes (-1) from the alliance directors. A negative vote immediately halts the process and requires discussion. Therefore, in order to remain valid, negative votes must be supported with a specific concerns about the proposal, and suggestions for what could be changed in order to make the proposal acceptable. Votes are raised within a period of time — generally two days, although the timeframe should be stated each time and should be proportionate to the impact of the action. 


We have choosen this decision model intentionally, to force us to make decisions that allow us
to excel at what we do, rather than to compromise away the principles and goals in the charter.
In the end no one wants half-good software, or a half open open-source project.

So it's not a democracy and there is no majority voting. But we aim to be able to be the best!

Regards, Barry



----- Original Message -----
From: "David Sommerseth" <dazo at eurephia.org>
To: "Quanah Gibson-Mount" <quanah at zimbra.com>, "Barry De Graaff" <barrydg at zetalliance.org>, users at lists.zetalliance.org
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 8:30:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Users] New Charter Proposal Change recommendation - Max 7 people to just state 7 people

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 18/03/16 20:13, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> Is having an odd number of directors a requirement? I.e., 5 or 7?

If thinking about voting, it makes sense to have odd numbers - as long
as no member possess the right for double votes.  As far as possible
I'd recommend that the maximum amount of votes is an odd number, that
way you avoid stale situation.


David S.



> --On Friday, March 18, 2016 8:11 PM +0000 Barry De Graaff 
> <barrydg at zetalliance.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Cine's proposal is now -3'ed:
>> 
>> New proposal:
>> 
>> Board of Directors Elected every 3 years, any Member can apply as
>> a candidate. Max. 7 people.
>> 
>> To be: Board of Directors 7 people elected every 3 years, any
>> Member can apply as a candidate, considering the following: - In
>> case a director steps down before the end of the term, a new
>> director should be elected for the remainder of the term.  - The
>> board of directors keeps voting power as long as there are at
>> least 5 directors. - In case 4 or less directors are on the
>> board, the board is suspended until new directors are elected.
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry that it is more text.
>> 
>> Barry
>> 
>> 
>> also the mailing list is slooowww
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Quanah Gibson-Mount Platform Architect Zimbra, Inc. 
> -------------------- Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging
> and collaboration A division of Synacor, Inc
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlbsVzgACgkQDC186MBRfrpkwACfTTVcgz/lrIPdkjTDcJaKkCIa
tPYAn2DCVXpIp8EGTI5Tp4Hyd5ZG7YNB
=0IwF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----