The PASS Board presents the following candidates for the 2010 Election:
The links above are interviews I conducted with the candidates earlier and to the candidates individual pages at the PASS Elections portal.
I asked a single follow-up question to each candidate: "If elected, what will you change (if anything) about the current Elections process?"
Allen Kinsel's Response
PASS, We have a problem.....
I'm going into this with the assumption that the other eleventy billion blog posts on the matter have gotten across all points relevant to >this< election, and that those are sufficient for coverage so I won’t rehash any of that.
What can we do to solve this problem? We need to evolve the PASS election process.
I want to start by saying that I think the NomCom has a hard job, and I also believe it’s a very valuable job. I think that we need a way of vetting candidates, both to save the candidates time (if unqualified) and to save the communities time (in researching several mildly qualified candidates).
Some additional background:
in 2009 we had a nominations committee that consisted of 2 community members, 1 HQ member, and 2 Current Board of Directors members (Disclosure: I was 1 of the community members)
in 2010 we had the same 2 community members, 1 HQ member, and 4 Current Board members.
So, let’s get to the business end of it, I think the composition of the nom com is backwards, we should require N+1 or N+2 community members where N is the # of BOD + HQ members serving on the committee.
Since presumably the community leaders on the nomcom would represent the community wishes, as far as candidates are concerned this process would immediately cut out the claims that the BOD is pulling the strings over who actually makes the slate. Additionally, potential nomcom volunteers could be chosen via a simple vote on the pass site (like the SQL Rally logo was) so we don’t have concerns of the existing BOD members stacking the nomcom.
Next let’s talk about the "slate approval" I think the fact the BOD must approve the slate is OK but, I would like to say that I think the nomcom also needs votes in the final approval (in the case of a deadlock where the community wants 1 thing and the current BOD another)
What I mean is probably easiest visualized
Say we have 14 current BOD members, with 2 BOD members serving on the nomcom, in addition 1 HQ member, that would make us have 4 (N+1) community leaders on the nom com
If the nom com goes through their process, and recommends a slate that the BOD declines (via, say an 8-6 down vote) If the nomcom then refuses to change the slate (because the community wants changes) they we would have another vote including the members of the nom com so there would be a total of 18 votes and presumably the vote would wind up 12-6 in favor of approving the "preferred" slate.
I’m not sure how "legal" any of this is, I’m not a lawyer but, I think the foundation (changing the nom com composition) would lead to far fewer disputed approval slates, especially with the threat of override looming.
so, now on to the next evolution, we need to tweak the guidelines for the nomcom, and how they weight the different items in the ranking sheet. I think we need to discuss as a community exactly "what" qualifies someone as a BOD member. This will be the most constructive when there aren’t real people attached to the discussions after an unpopular decision was made. Surely we would all agree that we wouldn’t want an oracle executive serving on the PASS BOD? /grin