Resolving the PEAR Group election tie

Hi,

Congratulations to the newly elected PEAR Group members,
this will be an
exciting time as PEAR moves forward.

I regret that the constitution as accepted does not have a
system in
place to resolve ties in the election - I did not anticipate
this
problem.  Murphy is of course always around to remind us
that whatever
can go wrong will go wrong.

Fortunately, the constitution DOES prescribe what to do in
order to make
a decision on this matter.  We need to amend the
constitution to
proscribe how to solve this issue.  Amending the
constitution is done by
a vote of 2/3 of the PEAR Group.  The constitution says 5 of
7 are
required.  Fortunately, 2/3 of 8 = 5 1/3 so rounding says 5
of 8 are
required to amend the constitution.

So, as my first act as elected president, I must recommend
that the
elected PEAR group convene (all 8 of them)via email and
amend the
constitution to describe how to resolve a tie in elections. 
I see 4 options

1) a run-off election between Justin and Paul
2) an intra-PEAR Group election
3) keep the current membership and amend the constitution
for the next
election 1 year from now, and add a provision for tie breaks
to the
constitution.
4) Either Justin or Paul steps down

I am personally wary of #2, as this seems against the spirit
of the new
government, where the larger developer population makes the
choice of
who will represent them, so I encourage the PEAR Group to
discard #2 as
a viable option, and instead investigate #1 or #3.

However, as I do not have the actual power to make any
legislative
decisions, I will happily sit back and watch the PEAR Group
in its first
significant action.  I will not veto anything you decide on
this issue.
 I am very interested to see what the decision will be, good
luck  

Based on my experience working with both, I am sure that
Justin and Paul
are equally qualified for the job, which makes choosing
quite difficult.
 In fact, I found choosing between all 13 candidates to be
one of the
more difficult choices I've had to make.

Thanks,
Greg

P.S.  I'm on a bus at the moment, just passed a sign for
Sidney,
Nebraska.  It's not going to be possible for me to take any
sweeping
action until the Nebraska tour is over, but Martin has the
capability to
set up stuff as needed.cap

-- 
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> I am personally wary of #2, as this seems against the
spirit of the  
> new
> government, where the larger developer population makes
the choice of
> who will represent them, so I encourage the PEAR Group
to discard  
> #2 as
> a viable option, and instead investigate #1 or #3.

I'm actually most in favor of #2. This is exceptionally
common in  
representative governing bodies where the elected body can
appoint /  
approve / break ties. A few examples would be the thousands
of people  
the President appoints with Congress's approval and my own
condo  
board, which can both select people to fill vacancies in
between  
elections and vote internally on who is which position.

I'd say the best choices are:

1.) The Group chooses the final person with the President
breaking  
any ties.

2.) President appoints someone and the Group affirms said
appointment.

My less favorite option is that there is a run-off election.
My  
absolute least favorite is that one of them bows out.

- --Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFGN8Tth0MUGpYY9OQRAslYAJ9iWc1fcKlYxAl4OXKOac+JZBYFeACg
hE4s
xuJqqAp9MzvbFCDEAG9AZkk=
=f3rz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

On 5/1/07, Greg Beaver <gregchiaraquartet.net>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Congratulations to the newly elected PEAR Group
members, this will be an
> exciting time as PEAR moves forward.
>

Very 

> I regret that the constitution as accepted does not
have a system in
> place to resolve ties in the election - I did not
anticipate this
> problem.  Murphy is of course always around to remind
us that whatever
> can go wrong will go wrong.
>
> Fortunately, the constitution DOES prescribe what to do
in order to make
> a decision on this matter.  We need to amend the
constitution to
> proscribe how to solve this issue.  Amending the
constitution is done by
> a vote of 2/3 of the PEAR Group.  The constitution says
5 of 7 are
> required.  Fortunately, 2/3 of 8 = 5 1/3 so rounding
says 5 of 8 are
> required to amend the constitution.
>
> So, as my first act as elected president, I must
recommend that the
> elected PEAR group convene (all 8 of them)via email and
amend the
> constitution to describe how to resolve a tie in
elections.  I see 4 options
>
> 1) a run-off election between Justin and Paul
> 2) an intra-PEAR Group election
> 3) keep the current membership and amend the
constitution for the next
> election 1 year from now, and add a provision for tie
breaks to the
> constitution.
> 4) Either Justin or Paul steps down
>
> I am personally wary of #2, as this seems against the
spirit of the new
> government, where the larger developer population makes
the choice of
> who will represent them, so I encourage the PEAR Group
to discard #2 as
> a viable option, and instead investigate #1 or #3.

Point 2 is not well explained, do you mean an
intra-pear-group
decision to decide who is to stay between Justin and Paul ?
Or you
mean and intra-pear-group election to decide which members
stay ?

If it's an intra-pear-group election to decide which of the
two should
either stay or go, I'm pretty much for it, however after
thinking this
whole issue over today I thought about keeping both members
(being a
team of 8) with the president as a tie breaker in case of 4
votes for
a subject against 4 and I believe this is simply overhead.

I am in favor of letting the pear-group run a small election
(let the
group decide) but I am against the fact that the president
makes a
choice that we then say if we like or not. I believe this is
an issue
the pear-group has to take care of.

+1 for inner-pear-group decision.

However one point that remains in place, we _need_ to make a
small
run-off elections becuase that is simply the most official
way of
doing it without having complains.

I am therefore suggesting that we run a small election (1
day) to
decide on the last member.

Greg, do you know if it is possible to only have
auth_user('pear.group'); to be able to vote on pearweb atm ?
I will
also take a look at that tonight and if it's not done I will
implement
it on pearweb so we can start some elections soon.

Of course, the best way to avoid that election, would be
that the two
parties (Paul and Justin) agree to run a small election
email-based.
That would simplify many things imho.

The idea of the email election would be that the 6 elected
pear-group
members could send their choice to our president which he
would
compile and announce. That is, I believe, a very clean and
fair way of
doing it.

Rest of the group.. what you think ?

Justin ? Paul ? You agree on having an email-election ?

>
> However, as I do not have the actual power to make any
legislative
> decisions, I will happily sit back and watch the PEAR
Group in its first
> significant action.  I will not veto anything you
decide on this issue.
>  I am very interested to see what the decision will be,
good luck  
>
> Based on my experience working with both, I am sure
that Justin and Paul
> are equally qualified for the job, which makes choosing
quite difficult.
>  In fact, I found choosing between all 13 candidates to
be one of the
> more difficult choices I've had to make.
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> P.S.  I'm on a bus at the moment, just passed a sign
for Sidney,
> Nebraska.  It's not going to be possible for me to take
any sweeping
> action until the Nebraska tour is over, but Martin has
the capability to
> set up stuff as needed.cap
>
> --
> PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php
>
>


-- 
David Coallier,
Founder & Software Architect,
Agora Production (http://agoraproduction.com
)
51.42.06.70.18

-- 
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

On 5/1/07, David Coallier <davidcphp.net> wrote:
> On 5/1/07, Greg Beaver <gregchiaraquartet.net>
wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Congratulations to the newly elected PEAR Group
members, this will be an
> > exciting time as PEAR moves forward.
> >
>
> Very 
>
> > I regret that the constitution as accepted does
not have a system in
> > place to resolve ties in the election - I did not
anticipate this
> > problem.  Murphy is of course always around to
remind us that whatever
> > can go wrong will go wrong.
> >
> > Fortunately, the constitution DOES prescribe what
to do in order to make
> > a decision on this matter.  We need to amend the
constitution to
> > proscribe how to solve this issue.  Amending the
constitution is done by
> > a vote of 2/3 of the PEAR Group.  The constitution
says 5 of 7 are
> > required.  Fortunately, 2/3 of 8 = 5 1/3 so
rounding says 5 of 8 are
> > required to amend the constitution.
> >
> > So, as my first act as elected president, I must
recommend that the
> > elected PEAR group convene (all 8 of them)via
email and amend the
> > constitution to describe how to resolve a tie in
elections.  I see 4 options
> >
> > 1) a run-off election between Justin and Paul
> > 2) an intra-PEAR Group election
> > 3) keep the current membership and amend the
constitution for the next
> > election 1 year from now, and add a provision for
tie breaks to the
> > constitution.
> > 4) Either Justin or Paul steps down
> >

Very good points, Greg. We, as the elected PEAR Group, need
to amend
the constitution first with what we decide and them continue
with that
decision.

> > I am personally wary of #2, as this seems against
the spirit of the new
> > government, where the larger developer population
makes the choice of
> > who will represent them, so I encourage the PEAR
Group to discard #2 as
> > a viable option, and instead investigate #1 or
#3.
>

I am wary of #2 as well as it seems like the PEAR Group is
taking upon
itself to decide what we essentially expected the community
to decide.
We are trying to be more community driven and transparent. I
would be
most in favor, I think, of having a run-off election, open
to the
entire developer community, to decide who the official last
member
will be. We can decide on a time-frame but I think it should
be a good
bit shorter than the main election's. 7 days at the most.

> Point 2 is not well explained, do you mean an
intra-pear-group
> decision to decide who is to stay between Justin and
Paul ? Or you
> mean and intra-pear-group election to decide which
members stay ?
>
> If it's an intra-pear-group election to decide which of
the two should
> either stay or go, I'm pretty much for it, however
after thinking this
> whole issue over today I thought about keeping both
members (being a
> team of 8) with the president as a tie breaker in case
of 4 votes for
> a subject against 4 and I believe this is simply
overhead.
>
> I am in favor of letting the pear-group run a small
election (let the
> group decide) but I am against the fact that the
president makes a
> choice that we then say if we like or not. I believe
this is an issue
> the pear-group has to take care of.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If the PEAR Group decides
who stays
there is the possibility of a 50/50 split with either the 6
definite
members or the 8 elected members. The point of a tie-breaker
is that
it breaks the tie. If we are to have an inter-PEAR-Group
vote we must
allow the president to cast the deciding ballot if the
Group's
decision ends in a tie.

>
> +1 for inner-pear-group decision.

>
> However one point that remains in place, we _need_ to
make a small
> run-off elections becuase that is simply the most
official way of
> doing it without having complains.
>
> I am therefore suggesting that we run a small election
(1 day) to
> decide on the last member.
>
> Greg, do you know if it is possible to only have
> auth_user('pear.group'); to be able to vote on pearweb
atm ? I will
> also take a look at that tonight and if it's not done I
will implement
> it on pearweb so we can start some elections soon.
>
> Of course, the best way to avoid that election, would
be that the two
> parties (Paul and Justin) agree to run a small election
email-based.
> That would simplify many things imho.
>
> The idea of the email election would be that the 6
elected pear-group
> members could send their choice to our president which
he would
> compile and announce. That is, I believe, a very clean
and fair way of
> doing it.
>
> Rest of the group.. what you think ?
>
> Justin ? Paul ? You agree on having an email-election
?
>
> >
> > However, as I do not have the actual power to make
any legislative
> > decisions, I will happily sit back and watch the
PEAR Group in its first
> > significant action.  I will not veto anything you
decide on this issue.
> >  I am very interested to see what the decision
will be, good luck  
> >
> > Based on my experience working with both, I am
sure that Justin and Paul
> > are equally qualified for the job, which makes
choosing quite difficult.
> >  In fact, I found choosing between all 13
candidates to be one of the
> > more difficult choices I've had to make.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Greg
> >
> > P.S.  I'm on a bus at the moment, just passed a
sign for Sidney,
> > Nebraska.  It's not going to be possible for me to
take any sweeping
> > action until the Nebraska tour is over, but Martin
has the capability to
> > set up stuff as needed.cap
> >

Of course, none of this needs to stop us from discussing
other
matters. If we decide on an election which may take more
time we can
always continue with other discussions before it ends.

Part of the amendment should likely say how the PEAR Group
can make
other decisions during this time as well. Does the old Group
continue
in power until the run-off/decision happens? Does the new
PEAR Group,
including ties, make decisions, or is it the new Group minus
those
that are tied?

P.S. By a tie we of course need to specify that the tie must
be for
the last seat(s) on the Group. If the top 6 people tied but
the person
with the least votes didn't we wouldn't have any problem.
There is no
official grading or ordering in the Group.

-- 
Justin Patrin

-- 
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

Hi,

Greg Beaver wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Congratulations to the newly elected PEAR Group
members, this 
> will be an
> exciting time as PEAR moves forward.
> 
> I regret that the constitution as accepted does not
have a system in
> place to resolve ties in the election - I did not
anticipate this
> problem.  Murphy is of course always around to remind
us that whatever
> can go wrong will go wrong.
> 
> Fortunately, the constitution DOES prescribe what to do
in 
> order to make
> a decision on this matter.  We need to amend the
constitution to
> proscribe how to solve this issue.  Amending the
constitution 
> is done by
> a vote of 2/3 of the PEAR Group.  The constitution says
5 of 7 are
> required.  Fortunately, 2/3 of 8 = 5 1/3 so rounding
says 5 of 8 are
> required to amend the constitution.
> 
> So, as my first act as elected president, I must
recommend that the
> elected PEAR group convene (all 8 of them)via email and
amend the
> constitution to describe how to resolve a tie in
elections.  
> I see 4 options
> 
> 1) a run-off election between Justin and Paul
> 2) an intra-PEAR Group election
> 3) keep the current membership and amend the
constitution for the next
> election 1 year from now, and add a provision for tie
breaks to the
> constitution.
> 4) Either Justin or Paul steps down

In the spirit of the constitution, it should be for
"the people" to decide
(i.e. an election between Justin and Paul, open to all
developers).
It is true that the constitution does not provide a solution
for this exact
problem, but it is still the constitution we have to
interpret to resolve
this. The constitution lists the following as a
responsibility of the
president: "Appoint people to fill temporary vacancies
on PEAR Group until
election can be held". I suggest we apply this solution
(holding an election
to fill the vacancy) to our problem. IMHO this is the only
constitutional
approach.

Keeping both Justin and Paul (i.e. having 8 developers in
the pear group) is
not an option. The constitution clearly states that the pear
group consists
of 7 developers. Leaving legislative decisions to the
present as a tie
breaker would somehow also beat the purpose of having an
independent body of
government - because some decisions they simply couldn't
make by themselves.

sorry for the technical approach, but this is a law student
speaking 

[snipped ...]

Cheers,
Lukas

--
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php

Hi all,

>> So, as my first act as elected president, I must
recommend that the
>> elected PEAR group convene (all 8 of them)via email
and amend the
>> constitution to describe how to resolve a tie in
elections.  I see  
>> 4 options
>>
>> 1) a run-off election between Justin and Paul
>> 2) an intra-PEAR Group election
>> 3) keep the current membership and amend the
constitution for the  
>> next
>> election 1 year from now, and add a provision for
tie breaks to the
>> constitution.
>> 4) Either Justin or Paul steps down
>>
>> I am personally wary of #2, as this seems against
the spirit of  
>> the new
>> government, where the larger developer population
makes the choice of
>> who will represent them, so I encourage the PEAR
Group to discard  
>> #2 as
>> a viable option, and instead investigate #1 or #3.

I think point 1, while more work in the short term, sets the
best  
precedent for the long term.  That is, set up a new election
with  
only Justin any myself, and let the community vote.  In the
event of  
*another* tie, fall back to point 2, and let the elected
members of  
PEAR Group vote among themselves, with the President
breaking any ties.



--

Paul M. Jones  <http://paul-m-jones.com&g
t;

Solar: Simple Object Library and Application Repository
for PHP5.  <http://solarphp.com>

Join the Solar community wiki!  <http://solarphp.org>

Savant: The simple, elegant, and powerful solution for
templates in PHP.  <http://phpsavant.com>


-- 
PEAR Development Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub
.php