J5’s Blog

June 3, 2011

Some practical fixes to the Foundation Membership process

Filed under: Gnome, Politics, community — J5 @ 9:39 am

I figured instead of just complaining I would offer some practical fixes which would avoid the issue of disfranchising in the future.

First let’s examine why this is is an issue.  In order to become a member of the Foundation one must prove they have worked on significant pieces of GNOME and have two references to back them up.  A lot of people I know balk at even going through this first step because as far as they can see there is little benefit to becoming a member.  I try to remind them that voting is an important benefit.  During my tenure as a Foundation Board member we saw this as an issue and tried to promote Foundation participation by those in the GNOME Community.  Among other things we required people receiving funding from the foundation to apply for membership at some point in the future.  However the problem still remains that being a member constitutes a voting ballot once a year (1 and a half years during my tenure due to realigning  election years) and little else (there is the occasional smaller ballot).  A foundation member also has to renew their membership once every two years.  So if a member has to think about Foundation process once a year and membership process once every two years it is easy for membership to laps until a member finds themselves in the quandary I now find myself in.  To further exacerbate the situation it is a known issue by the membership and election committees that spam filters eat their e-mails and that the only reminders sent out are the exact same e-mails.

So how do we fix this?

Long Term Solutions

1.) Make registration an in person event to compliment the reminder e-mails – one of the things Foundation Members tend to do every year is go to one of the many events the Foundation sponsors.  If there is a registration system their names should be flagged and they given the opportunity to  renew their membership if it is set to expire in less than a year.  This should be an offline form that is processed at a later date as we all know how bad conference networking can be.  This can be a stipulation to organizers for receiving funding from the Board.

2.) Remind people when they are interacting with the Foundation process – Since voting happens every year, why not warn people when they vote that they will not be eligible for the next years vote unless they reregister at some point during the year?

Short Term Solution

All those who were denied a vote and who voted in last years elections should be allowed to reregister for this vote and given a ballot.

[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]

June 2, 2011

I’ve been disenfranchised

Filed under: Gnome, Politics — J5 @ 7:20 pm

Having not received a ballot for this years elections I went into my spam folder to see if it had been caught there.  Instead I found a renewal notification for my foundation membership.  The policy for members to renew their membership every two years is not a bad one but I was just informed that I can not be renewed until after the elections and as such can not cast any vote in this cycle.  That is a bad policy.  For someone who is in good standing with the Foundation, having worked on its behalf and even have been a board member myself, I feel I have a right to vote in this election.

The policy to not allow renewal at the ballot box has in effect disenfranchised me.  Most bodies of democracy I know allow registering at the ballot box for those who have a record of having been previously registered and can prove they are who they say they are.  We aren’t talking about someone voting who has not participated in a vote before and would require excessive vetting before gaining that right.

What really gets me steamed about the situation is that due to being caught in a spam filter the only other way I could know that I was removed from the Foundation’s member list was to realize that I never received a voting ballot in which case I am not even give a chance to re-register before voting cuts it off.

UPDATE: I have been notified by the membership committee that many people failed to re-register and are unable to vote this cycle.  If this isn’t a sign of a broken system then people are ignoring the issue.  I could see if this was an isolated incident but since there is a small number of people who are eligible to vote I wonder what the ratio is of people who were denied a vote due to this procedural issue.  I bet it is statistically significant.  How can a vote be legitimate when a significant portion of the community is denied their vote?  It is grounds for a challenge during the ratification stage.

[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]

Powered by WordPress