[Osmf-talk] seat rotation

Richard Weait richard at weait.com
Thu Oct 23 16:30:00 UTC 2014


On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> My memory is it's based on who's been there the longest so it's not exactly random.

In theory, that could work, in practice it hasn't applied evenly.  :-)
  There were 3, 4, 3, 3, 2 candidates in each election since OSMF
moved to 3-year nominal terms.

Sometimes only part of a group of equally-senior board members have
their terms extended.

Sometimes a more-senior board member has their term extended when they
would otherwise be expected to stand for re-election, because a more
junior board member retires early.

I suggest that both of the cases above are a departure from the goal.

One would expect, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, to be the ideal if the seats had
timers on a 7-seat board.  That should be transparent and
maintainable.

Filling a vacant seat could be done by any acceptable method but would
not change the timer on the seat.  In local terms here, a municipality
might hold a bye-election[1] to fill a seat for the remainder of a
term. One might schedule the bye-election in parallel with the AGM
election as a matter of convenience.  Or the term might naturally
expire at the next AGM and nothing need change.

As far as I recall, the board has not, to date, replaced any of the
mid-term retirees before the next AGM.

So, to review.

2009 7 seats. Seven board members to 3-year nominal terms
2010 3 seats. Four terms were extended.

2011 4 seats.  Anomaly. Only two seats of the four equally-senior
stood for election. Two junior seats were also refilled.

2012 3 seats. Anomaly. One junior seat retired early while the
third-senior continued.

2013 3 seats. Anomaly. The most-senior and two of three equally-senior
seats were filled.

2014 2 seats. Anomaly. The most senior and one of three equally-senior
seats are available.

2015 ???. Seniority could be 2*3-years and 3*2-years.

2016 ???.

If seat timers were implemented soonish, one might agree that the 2
seats in 2014, and the 2 in 2015 have set things for the 3 in 2016,
without having to draw straws, as appears to have happened in 2011,
2012, 2013, 2014 when at least one more-senior board member remained
while at least one equally- or less-senior board member stepped down.

The benefit is greater clarity and transparency.  One always knows
when ones term is up.  One always knows when a bye-election seat with
a shorter mandate is available.  And no drawing of straws.

best regards and happy mapping,

Richard

* first implementation of three-year terms in 2009
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-election




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list