Talk:Constitution of the Open Computing Facility
From OCFwiki
Below are a few pieces of email from psb, one of the drafters of the constitution, clarifying a few points of the constitution novakyu 22:03, 6 February 2006 (PST)
Chair of the OCF meetings
From: "Partha S. Banerjee,,," <psb@ucsee.eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: novakyu@OCF.Berkeley.EDU, tdhock@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
Cc: admin@OCF.Berkeley.EDU, bod@OCF.Berkeley.EDU, sluo@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: SM business
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:44:53 -0800
>We are not bound by the constitution to even have SM attend the BoD
>meeting: Item 3.1.7: "The General Manager is the chief political and
>executive officer of the OCF and shall chair all meetings." Now. the
>interpretation of the next item is tricky: "... In the absence of the
>General Manager, a Site Manager shall chair meetings." As long as we can
>ensure that a General Manager (assuming we have... regarded co-GM as
>being even constitutional) will be at every BoD meeting, there is no
>need for SM at BoD meeting, other than for keeping us up to date on
>what's happening.
>
my interpretation of the "in the abscence of the GM a SM shall chair the
meeting" is as follows:
if the GM isnt there AND has not deletegated somebody specific
to chair the meeting for him, then it falls to the SMs to pick
among themselves somebody to chair the meeting.
this is a practical measure who that either the sole SM or small
number of SMs can make a decision in the event of UNEXECPTED
abscence of the GM. it is understood that if the GM knows he wont
be there, he will delegate somebody to run the meeting ... that
delegation authority trumps the "fallback to SM" rule.
of course with the idiotic and clearly unconstitional co-GM practice,
you might as well ignore whatever else you want.
--psb
Resolving Election Tie
From: "Partha S. Banerjee,,," <psb@ucsee.eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: dwc@OCF.Berkeley.EDU, yury@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
Cc: admin@OCF.Berkeley.EDU, bod@OCF.Berkeley.EDU, novakyu@OCF.Berkeley.EDU,
psb@ucsee.eecs.berkeley.edu, sluo@OCF.Berkeley.EDU,
tdhock@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: SM business
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:22:20 -0800
>...three candidates ...
>And the votes were 7:5:2.
>
hmm, ok.
so if we have:
A: 7votes
B: 5votes
C: 2votes
i would handle this as follows:
1. The first step is clear:
C is eliminated and A vs B get another vote.
I suppose at the discretion of the chair or if requested
A and B probably should be given another opportunity to speak
in a sense to appear to C and C voters. In fact C may publicly
endorse somebody.
2. If that leads to:
A: 7votes
B: 7votes
and the chair has voted, then I think you have a legitimate crisis.
[one option is to say the chair only breaks ties, but that has not
been ocf practice. i think the OCF GM should normally continue to vote
and not just break ties]
So at this point, I suppose I'd ask if either candidate wants to conceed.
If the answer is "no", here is what I would do ... n.b. this isnt dicatated
any real precedent or body of rules ... just an attempt to stave off a
crisis in a fair manner ...
I would probably say something like "we will adjourn for 20min" and
after that, we will have another round of questions and speechs and
then vote again. However, I may allow any new people to show up at
the meeting to vote. So people would be free to scour the labs or
get on the cell phone to get somebody there ASAP.
If I were the chair, I might try to ask some pointed questions to
draw out the distinction between the two candidates. I suppose at
this point maybe the GM really ought to say "I am willing to not
vote this round and break a tie" ... if new people come in, I
think this is a pretty reasonable trade off. It may not be unreasonable
for the "GM's candidate" to be slightly handicapped.
I would also consider an "Allen Charge" ... which is what a judge does
in the case of a hung jury [see http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a105.htm].
so something like:
"look, it is really important to come to a decision ... please take
the time to ask the candidates any questions that may get you to
consier changing your vote ... and if you feel one candidate really
is better qualified, please try and put aside personal issues and go
with whom you truely believe would be the best candidate."
i think endorsements if they werent explicit earlier would not
be unreasonable here. so at this point it looks a little more like
a deliberation [like a jury] than just a vote.
it is a tricky question whether the GM should strongly endorse somebody.
I suppose if through all of this the vote is still hung, you are in a
legitimate crisis and the GM's executive authority [subject to the DMP]
would kick in. he need to come up with something fair to resolve this.
what is clearly not fair is "i get a second vote to break the tie".
i assume this would look something like "i will continue in office
until date X in which case we will have a second election" obviously
X should probably be withing 5-10 days. i think the GM should seriously
consider the "only break ties" role for that second election. i think
that is better than something like "the two candidates should submit essays
/meet with the faculty sponsor and he will decide" or try to have some
kind of electronic vote.
again, i think there will be a certain ad hocness to this so the chair
needs to balance the importance having a process which "halts" and remains
fair the candidates and representative of the electorate [there is a subtle
difference between those two, BTW].
--psb
