| Content of these pages are owned and copyrighted by the poster. | |
| Hosted by: |
|
JOS has suffered in the past from a lack of decisiveness and organization. It is difficult to come to a consensus on issues, and even if a decision is made it is quite likely that the issue will come up again in the future and the same ground covered. For example the recent licensing debates. This issue has been discussed many times, and at one point we seemed to draw to a rough consensus that we would use a PSI style license. This situation now seems to have changed. Other examples includes issues such as whether to use RTEMS, whether to become a registered non-profit org., whether to register the logo as a trademark, etc etc.
By introducing a constitution we introduce a common framework of rules that we all agree to adhere too. The current proposed constitution only contains rules that relate to running votes on issues. This is an important first step. With such a framework in place we can discuss an issue, call a vote on it, and come to a conclusion. That conclusion can then become "official" JOS policy. That policy can then only be changed by another vote to over turn it.
As some of you will recall we held a survey recently to discover what people felt about having a constitution. The wording of the question implied that the constitution when it finally arrived would include some form of committee to help with organizational matters. The result of that survey was a strong "yes" in favour. However during the discussions following the survey, there was disagreement over the validity of the results. There were some suggestions about how the voting process could have been improved, and in particular it was pointed out that some people might have voted "yes" to a constitution and "no" to a committee. It became apparent that the first step in producing any form of organizational structure would be to first introduce the mechanism by which votes take place. More controversial proposals (such as a committee) could then be introduced at a later date.
The most important thing at the moment is to get a system where we can make collective decisions. We can always expand the constitution in the future, once we have that mechanism set up.
First of all in order to cast a vote, you have to become a voting member. This will be achieved simply by subscribing to a designated mailing list. This list will be set up exclusively for posts on votes and would be expected to have a low volume of traffic on it.
When an issue is put to a vote it will be advertised on the voting list. In the advertisement it will be stated when the vote is taking place and who to contact to cast your vote. Email that person with your choice of vote.
There are four possible types of vote. Usually you would vote either
a) Yes - you agree with the motion being voted on
b) No - you disagree with the motion being voted on
Alternatively if you have no strong opinion either way and would be happy with either result you can vote:
c) Abstain - you don't wish to express an opinion, you will be happy with either result
The fourth option is used if you feel that something is wrong about the vote itself. For example if the following motion was voted on:
"Do you agree that JOS should have a constitution including a committee?"
You may feel that you want a constitution, but don't want a committee. Technically then you should probably respond "no". However this doesn't really accurately reflect your views on the issue. If the question had been worded differently (i.e. removing the reference to a committee) you may have voted "yes". In this case the question has been poorly worded. You can therefore respond:
d) Neither - the question has been poorly worded or there is some other procedural problem.
This response is an implicit "no" - but indicates that if things had been done differently you could vote differently.
We learned a lot from the survey that was taken.
We learned that the membership has many diverse and often strong opinions about certain issues. Often a simple 'yes' or 'no' just doesn't express a member's opinion. Not having the 'neither' option could cause a poorly worded question to be flatly rejected even though a majority of members thought a part of it had merit.
Certain other issues some members don't really care about the outcome, but they don't want their ambivilence about the issue to keep a vote from getting passed due to not meeting a quorum.
There are two types of vote in the proposed constitution: ordinary and extraordinary. They require different levels of support in order to be "passed". Most votes would lie in the "ordinary" category. Votes on whether we should change the wording of the constitution itself lie in the "extraordinary" category.
Any member of JOS would be able to request that a vote take place. It is the responsibility of the vote proposer to find a seconder (someone else who agrees that the vote is a good idea), and a vote administrator (someone who will act as a neutral person to run the vote). A vote takes place by first advertising it (by placing an advert on the wiki, and also on an email list specially set up for that purpose). Following the advert there then follows a period of time where objections may be raised. An objection can be raised if someone felt that the person selected to be the vote administrator would not act in a neutral way. If an objection to the administrator occurs then a new administrator has to be selected. Also, an objection could be raised if the wording of the vote was such that if it did not pass, then a change would be made. The Constitution specifies that all votes must be worded such that a failed vote maintains the status quo.
If no objections are raised then votes are placed by emailing the vote administrator. Voting is secret.
To determine whether a vote has passed or not, 2 factors have to be considered. Have enough people voted? and have enough people voted "yes"?
For "ordinary" votes the quorum is 15% of the total voting membership. To pass more than 50% of people have to vote "yes".
For "extraordinary" votes the quorum is 25% of the total voting membership. To pass more than 66% of people have to vote "yes".
The total voting membership is defined to be the number of people that are subscribed to the list where votes are advertised.
Abstentions are counted in calculating the quorum, but ignored in calculating the percentage of "yes" votes. "Neither" is not counted in calculating the quorum, but is counted in calculating the percentage of votes. For example if the quorum is 35 votes you might get the following:
Yes: 20 votes
No: 15 votes
Abstain: 5 votes
Neither: 5 votes
The number of people voting (to check quoracy) is 20 yes votes + 15 no votes + 5 abstain votes = 40 votes. The neither votes are ignored. The required number was 35 so this vote is quorate.
The percentage of yes votes is 20 divided by (20 yes + 15 no + 5 neither) = 20/40 = 50 percent
The % no votes is 15/40 = 37.5 percent
The % neither votes is 5/40 = 12.5 percent
The abstain votes are ignored.
This vote is not passed because only 50% of people voted "yes" (in order to pass you need more than 50%).
Well, yes it is. But we think you can handle it. :) We wanted the voting procedure to allow all opinions to be adequately heard and accounted for fairly.
Most of the confusion usually comes from how the 'neither' and 'abstain' votes are handled. Both kinds of votes are counted in a manner that reflects the nature of that vote.
The 'neither' vote is an implicit 'no' when tallying whether the question passed or failed because the vote implicitly says that the question should not pass. However, if 'neither' were counted towards the quorum, then that is like saying the question was a good one to ask. That goes against the very definition of a 'neither' vote.
The 'abstain' is far more easy to understand. It does say that the question is a good one to ask, so the vote is counted towards the quorum. However, it also says that the member is neutral to the outcome of the vote, and therefore does not count towards the passage or failure of the question.
So is this clear as mud? If so, you might want to go and read the archives of the JOS-Requirements list where the discussions defining this took place. In particular post 676 should be helpful.
Calculating the quorum, and setting the quorum level has been the biggest issue of debate in producing this constitution. There were many different view points, and we have tried to come up with the best compromise. As with all compromises its not perfect.
In an organization such as JOS the membership is very dynamic. People join and leave all of the time. How then do you keep an accurate tally of the current "active" membership? It was decided that the best solution would be to calculate this number by finding the total number of people subscribed to an email list. This is self regulating - if people are no longer interested in receiving mail from that list they will unsubscribe themselves.
This solution is still not perfect however. Inevitably there will still be some "lurkers" on the email list who will never respond to votes. It would be unfair to not pass a vote because not enough lurkers voted. Therefore a low quorum level was set.
One of the main purposes of a quorum is as a safety net to ensure that processes are working correctly. In a traditional organization (not internet based) a quorum is necessary so that major decisions cannot be made by a minority - if not enough people turn up for a meeting then it is not quorate. On the internet however if we send out a mail to a list you can be sure that almost everyone will receive it (a few may not because of technical difficulties). Everyone has the opportunity to vote. The fact that everyone should know of the vote and have the opportunity to vote on it, we feel justifies the low quorum levels.
The constitution refers to a second document - the policy book. It is intended that the constitution over time will remain relatively static and unchanged (if we've got it right). The policy book will be more of a living document, and will contain the policy of JOS at the current time. It is also a place where decisions that JOS has made collectively can be recorded so that those decisions are not lost and forgotten about.
Similar to how the American Constitution included a procedure for ratifying it, the JOS Constitution will be ratified in the same manner that it specifies for changes to itself. Thus, a vote-info list has been created for the purposes of identifying who the active membership is. We will allow two months for people to register themselves as voters by subscribing to the list before taking a vote in the manner prescribed by the proposed Constitution. If you don't like the voting procedure or don't like the idea of us voting on anything at all, then make your voice known and vote 'no'. So go and register yourself at http://jos.org/mailman/listinfo/vote-info and we'll be taking the vote about the 1st of July, 1999!
| Content of these pages are owned and copyrighted by the poster. | |
| Hosted by: |
|