[Eg-oversight-board] Office election codification

[Mike Rylander]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Dan Scott <dan at coffeecode.net> wrote:
> Thanks for raising this, Grace. Just to respond to one small piece:
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Grace Dunbar <gdunbar at esilibrary.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Specific parts to replace/modify/add:
>> 2.4 d. [current wording] Each year, the Board shall promulgate procedures
>> for nominating and electing new Board members. Nominations may be made by
>> any individual who has contributed to Evergreen or who is employed by an
>> institution that runs Evergreen.
>> 2.4 d. [proposed wording] Each year, the Board shall review procedures for
>> nominating and electing new Board members. If no changes to the procedures
>> are to be made, the Board shall follow the procedure established the
>> previous calendar year. Nominations may be made by any individual who has
>> contributed to Evergreen or who is employed by an institution that runs
>> Evergreen.
>
>
> The change from "promulgate" to "review" is significant; the intent of
> "promulgate" is to ensure that the procedures are widely known, whereas
> "review" makes it very inward-facing and doesn't charge the Oversight Board
> with promoting the elections to try and ensure a broad slate of candidates.
> Maybe drop the high-falutin' "promulgate" for "promote widely" or "publicize
> widely"?
>

Both are important, in my view.  Perhaps instead of either we simply
need both, so I would like to propose a revision: "review and
promulgate."

Reasoning: Because the ROG does not specify the technologies and
mechanisms for nominating and voting, the Board should be charged with
reviewing the previous year's procedures and either adjusting or
accenting to the same.  And then, with a mechanism in place, the Board
will promulgate those procedures.

> It also seems strange to bake an annual review of this one process into the
> rules of governance, as well as the additional sentence about "...follow the
> procedure established...". Perhaps the nomination and election process that
> is already documented in 2.4(d) and 2.4(e) could be enhanced slightly, at
> least to the extent of specifying "Approval Style". 2.4(e) already mentions
> electronic voting; I don't think it's desirable to mention any specific
> supplier here.
>

I agree that the ROG need not, and should not, mention any specific
suppliers; I don't see where that was suggested.  Assuming the balance
of board agrees that we should continue to avoid naming a specific
supplier in the ROG, that would suggest an annual process, or review,
to create the procedures (or approve the previous year's) for later
promulgation.  To me, at least, baking in a review seems, if not
completely necessary, certainly beneficial to the Board and the
community.

> Looking at it just a bit more, 2.4(d) and 2.4(e) should probably be
> separated out from "2.4 Term" to a new "2.5 Elections"; this would provide
> the opportunity to also document the "Members of the community must register
> to vote via an online survey. Submissions shall be vetted by the Board for
> eligibility." steps. I think this would strengthen the Rule of Governance,
> without delving too far into specifics of the tools and processes, and the
> elections piece would continue to be subject to review on an as-needed basis
> as any other part of the Rules of Governance are.
>

I agree, those along with Grace's would be useful additions and clarifications.

Thanks, Dan!

--Mike