Fellowship elections participation

[Florian Snow]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for making very specific points in your criticism.  I think we
can take away quite a few improvements from your comments.


Paul Boddie <paul at boddie.org.uk> writes:
> * A lack of a decent venue for discussion with the
> candidates. Apparently, we have this mailing list and yet it isn't
> certain that the candidates are subscribed to it.

I think an easy fix would be to require candidates to subscribe here
next year.  You received a few responses here when you asked about the
elections, but I think this is what we should tell people right away, in
the first email about the elections: "These are the candidates, you can
reach then via discussion@, and there will be hustings on IRC at this
date."


> * Uncertainty about the relevance or importance of the Fellowship
> representatives. With a much larger board and perhaps less
> transparency than might be achieved, one wonders what influence the
> representatives have.

Agreed.  I think we need better transparency about the work of the GA,
perhaps more detailed minutes can be a start.  That way, we can say who
gets which kind of input.  We would also see more clearly what kind of
decisions the GA makes.


> some people actually donate to delegate instead of participate.

That may very well also be the case.  The question would be how many
people see things that way.  However, since voter turnout was much
higher in the past, I think there must be some other reasons that
affected this election.

Happy hacking!
Florian