Results of the 2015 Election to the X.Org BoD & Vote on the By-Law Changes

[Eric Anholt]

Peter Jones <pjones at redhat.com> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:10:24PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 08:27:45AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> > > 2. On the question:
>> > >
>> > > Do you agree to the changed By-Laws?
>> > > No 2
>> > > Abstain 4
>> > > Yes 35
>> > >
>> > > According to Article 7 of the Oct. 29, 2006 By-Laws the following
>> > > provision is made for changes to the By-Laws:
>> > >
>> > >  "AMENDMENT These By-law may be altered, amended or repealed by
>> > >   an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Members
>> > >   of X.Org."
>> > >
>> > > With 69 active Members a two-thirds of the Members of X.Org is 46.
>> > > This would be the number of affirmative votes required for acceptance.
>> > > This was clearly missed. Therefore the changes to the By-Laws
>> > > were not accepted.
>> > >
>> > 
>> > That's incredibly disappointing, especially with such a resounding majority
>> > of those who did vote in favour.
>> > 
>> > Do we have a good sense of why turnout is so low? How does this compare
>> > with previous elections, including the last bylaw revision? And, more
>> > importantly, where to from here?
>> 
>> I'm gonna go with "communication issues". with the delay in the election it
>> was pushed to the easter week where plenty of people are on holidays. The
>> final day was easter sunday, so we should've spammed a lot more reminders to
>> make sure we get through to everyone. And it looks like it wasn't clear to
>> all members that the 2/3 majority was required to get the bylaws approved. 
>> 
>> Voter participation wasn't bad as such, I think 41 out of 69 is on par or
>> higher than most other projects, or political elections in general. The need
>> for a 2/3 majority is what killed us here though.
>> 
>> Personally, I think the clear tendency towards "yes" is motivation enough
>> that we should try again, with clearer communication how important the vote
>> is (this is not an official position of the board).
>> SPI is likely to extend another invitation should we get to that point.
>
> As somebody who probably is counted as an "active" member for this
> purpose, but *really* isn't, I think you're right.
>
> Which is to say that my incredibly passive membership is among the
> reasons this completely reasonable initiative, which I knew about but
> hadn't thought through in terms of /do I need to vote for this and if so
> when/, didn't pass.  That's really embarrassing.  Sorry.

Hey, I'm a former board member, and I missed the voting window myself (I
saw the "changes up for review" message but missed that it was time to
go click buttons).  2/3 of active, rather than 2/3 of those who voted,
is harsh.

I'm hoping the board takes another go at this.  My apologies to them.  I
think we've done nag emails during votes before, and it might be worth
it if another vote happens.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://foundation.x.org/archives/members/attachments/20150413/8c3fbe07/attachment.pgp>