PSF Board Election Update: Nominees Posted
Hi! The PSF 2020 board election nominations are now available for our voting members to check out: https://www.python.org/nominations/elections/2020-python-software-foundation... . Ballots will be sent out June 8th. The voting end date will be *June 17, 2020 AoE*
How many seats are opening up for this coming election? I confess that between the staggered terms, some off-cycle resignations, and whatnot, I haven't kept track. I intend to study all candidate profiles closely. But on a quick glance, I am excited that we could potentially elect an entire slate of extremely qualified people, all from the global south. On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 3:57 PM Ewa Jodlowska <ewa@python.org> wrote:
Hi!
The PSF 2020 board election nominations are now available for our voting members to check out: https://www.python.org/nominations/elections/2020-python-software-foundation... .
Ballots will be sent out June 8th. The voting end date will be *June 17, 2020 AoE*
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
Hi David- There are 4 seats available. Information can be confirmed here: https://www.python.org/nominations/elections/ Ewa On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 5:49 PM David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
How many seats are opening up for this coming election? I confess that between the staggered terms, some off-cycle resignations, and whatnot, I haven't kept track.
I intend to study all candidate profiles closely. But on a quick glance, I am excited that we could potentially elect an entire slate of extremely qualified people, all from the global south.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 3:57 PM Ewa Jodlowska <ewa@python.org> wrote:
Hi!
The PSF 2020 board election nominations are now available for our voting members to check out: https://www.python.org/nominations/elections/2020-python-software-foundation... .
Ballots will be sent out June 8th. The voting end date will be *June 17, 2020 AoE*
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
I am delighted to have just completed my vote for the slate of the 2020 term PSF Board. As my personal voting strategy, I read all of the candidate statements, and nominator statements where they were made, and basically tried to come up with any reason in my mind why a given candidate was not absolutely my highest preference. That said, even if ALL 4 seats go to folks I did not vote for, I will remain delighted by the outcome, since there are so many wonderful candidates running. At the completion of selection (in my case, of 11 candidates), I was presented with this message: [you under-voted: you may select up to 26]
I was, in the past, the PSF Voting Administrator, and introduced the use of Approval Voting as the election method (many years ago now). So I get what this means, but I am concerned that the phrasing may confuse new voters, or simply those less wrapped up in election arcana. I do not know if it is possible now to adjust that phrase slightly. ANY number of votes, from zero to 26 is technically valid in the Approval Voting style. It is a little bit pointless to vote for exactly 0 or exactly 26, since your vote will not affect the outcome in those cases (but it is still valid, and registers your participation). But any number of approvals from 1 to 25 will in some manner legitimately express a differential preference. When you vote, if you see a similar message, do not be alarmed by it. You are given an opportunity there to adjust your votes, if you wish, but you may also simply submit your vote with your desired number of selections, and it will be valid and counted. Yours, David... --- The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the not-yet born. Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born, become abortifacients against new conceptions.
That phrase, I believe, is part of Helios' default templates which the administrator can not change and has been there for the last several years in which we've used Helios. I agree that it is possibly confusing, but I suspect Ben would be willing to adjust it if you're willing to open an issue and have a dialogue there. Signed, A fellow former administrator On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 3:14 PM David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
I am delighted to have just completed my vote for the slate of the 2020 term PSF Board. As my personal voting strategy, I read all of the candidate statements, and nominator statements where they were made, and basically tried to come up with any reason in my mind why a given candidate was not absolutely my highest preference. That said, even if ALL 4 seats go to folks I did not vote for, I will remain delighted by the outcome, since there are so many wonderful candidates running.
At the completion of selection (in my case, of 11 candidates), I was presented with this message:
[you under-voted: you may select up to 26]
I was, in the past, the PSF Voting Administrator, and introduced the use of Approval Voting as the election method (many years ago now). So I get what this means, but I am concerned that the phrasing may confuse new voters, or simply those less wrapped up in election arcana. I do not know if it is possible now to adjust that phrase slightly.
ANY number of votes, from zero to 26 is technically valid in the Approval Voting style. It is a little bit pointless to vote for exactly 0 or exactly 26, since your vote will not affect the outcome in those cases (but it is still valid, and registers your participation). But any number of approvals from 1 to 25 will in some manner legitimately express a differential preference.
When you vote, if you see a similar message, do not be alarmed by it. You are given an opportunity there to adjust your votes, if you wish, but you may also simply submit your vote with your desired number of selections, and it will be valid and counted.
Yours, David...
--- The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the not-yet born. Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born, become abortifacients against new conceptions. _______________________________________________ PSF-Vote mailing list PSF-Vote@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-vote
Thanks for clarifying, David. Let me second that message - you can vote for as many or as few of the nominees as you want, and your votes will be recorded. As David suggests, if everyone voted for all the candidates, there wouldn't be a decision. Cheers, Naomi On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 15:15, David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
I am delighted to have just completed my vote for the slate of the 2020 term PSF Board. As my personal voting strategy, I read all of the candidate statements, and nominator statements where they were made, and basically tried to come up with any reason in my mind why a given candidate was not absolutely my highest preference. That said, even if ALL 4 seats go to folks I did not vote for, I will remain delighted by the outcome, since there are so many wonderful candidates running.
At the completion of selection (in my case, of 11 candidates), I was presented with this message:
[you under-voted: you may select up to 26]
I was, in the past, the PSF Voting Administrator, and introduced the use of Approval Voting as the election method (many years ago now). So I get what this means, but I am concerned that the phrasing may confuse new voters, or simply those less wrapped up in election arcana. I do not know if it is possible now to adjust that phrase slightly.
ANY number of votes, from zero to 26 is technically valid in the Approval Voting style. It is a little bit pointless to vote for exactly 0 or exactly 26, since your vote will not affect the outcome in those cases (but it is still valid, and registers your participation). But any number of approvals from 1 to 25 will in some manner legitimately express a differential preference.
When you vote, if you see a similar message, do not be alarmed by it. You are given an opportunity there to adjust your votes, if you wish, but you may also simply submit your vote with your desired number of selections, and it will be valid and counted.
Yours, David...
--- The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the not-yet born. Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born, become abortifacients against new conceptions. _______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
-- Naomi Ceder @NaomiCeder • https://www.naomiceder.tech https://www.manning.com/books/the-quick-python-book-third-edition
David, Thank you for the clarification. Personally, I believe all candidates are very well-qualified and, combined with their enthusiasm about Python and maintaining a top-tier, open-source platform, selecting only a few is incredibly challenging. I want to vote for them all! The PSF is lucky to be able to select from such a group. Kindest, Mark Moretto On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 4:15 PM David Mertz <mertz@gnosis.cx> wrote:
I am delighted to have just completed my vote for the slate of the 2020 term PSF Board. As my personal voting strategy, I read all of the candidate statements, and nominator statements where they were made, and basically tried to come up with any reason in my mind why a given candidate was not absolutely my highest preference. That said, even if ALL 4 seats go to folks I did not vote for, I will remain delighted by the outcome, since there are so many wonderful candidates running.
At the completion of selection (in my case, of 11 candidates), I was presented with this message:
[you under-voted: you may select up to 26]
I was, in the past, the PSF Voting Administrator, and introduced the use of Approval Voting as the election method (many years ago now). So I get what this means, but I am concerned that the phrasing may confuse new voters, or simply those less wrapped up in election arcana. I do not know if it is possible now to adjust that phrase slightly.
ANY number of votes, from zero to 26 is technically valid in the Approval Voting style. It is a little bit pointless to vote for exactly 0 or exactly 26, since your vote will not affect the outcome in those cases (but it is still valid, and registers your participation). But any number of approvals from 1 to 25 will in some manner legitimately express a differential preference.
When you vote, if you see a similar message, do not be alarmed by it. You are given an opportunity there to adjust your votes, if you wish, but you may also simply submit your vote with your desired number of selections, and it will be valid and counted.
Yours, David...
--- The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the not-yet born. Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born, become abortifacients against new conceptions. _______________________________________________ PSF-Vote mailing list PSF-Vote@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-vote
Hello, One thing that's been helpful in the CPython developer community is a message board (Discourse in this case, but the specifics don't matter) where we could ask questions to the various Steering Committee candidates. This would be welcome for the PSF board elections as well. Regards Antoine. Le 05/06/2020 à 21:56, Ewa Jodlowska a écrit :
Hi!
The PSF 2020 board election nominations are now available for our voting members to check out: https://www.python.org/nominations/elections/2020-python-software-foundation....
Ballots will be sent out June 8th. The voting end date will be _June 17, 2020 AoE_
_______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:00 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Hello,
One thing that's been helpful in the CPython developer community is a message board (Discourse in this case, but the specifics don't matter) where we could ask questions to the various Steering Committee candidates. This would be welcome for the PSF board elections as well.
That's a great idea.
Since candidates were not given a heads up to prepare or put aside time, we will add this for next year.
Hey all, My company, Civic Hacker, can provide a private Mastodon instance for this purpose or similar. I would love to help the PSF in such a tangible way. Jurnell On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:13 PM Ewa Jodlowska <ewa@python.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:00 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Hello,
One thing that's been helpful in the CPython developer community is a message board (Discourse in this case, but the specifics don't matter) where we could ask questions to the various Steering Committee candidates. This would be welcome for the PSF board elections as well.
That's a great idea.
Since candidates were not given a heads up to prepare or put aside time, we will add this for next year. _______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
-- Jurnell Cockhren Founder @ Civic Hacker https://civichacker.com
I also like this idea. I think the existing Slack workspace could also fit this purpose well. Though a PSF Mastodon instance would be cool in general and wouldn't require logging in to Slack. Best, Maria On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 1:25 PM Jurnell Cockhren <jurnell@civichacker.com> wrote:
Hey all, My company, Civic Hacker, can provide a private Mastodon instance for this purpose or similar. I would love to help the PSF in such a tangible way.
Jurnell
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:13 PM Ewa Jodlowska <ewa@python.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:00 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Hello,
One thing that's been helpful in the CPython developer community is a message board (Discourse in this case, but the specifics don't matter) where we could ask questions to the various Steering Committee candidates. This would be welcome for the PSF board elections as well.
That's a great idea.
Since candidates were not given a heads up to prepare or put aside time, we will add this for next year. _______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
-- Jurnell Cockhren Founder @ Civic Hacker https://civichacker.com _______________________________________________ PSF-Vote mailing list PSF-Vote@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-vote
While I'm a huge fan of Mastodon (I run wandering.shop), I'm a bigger fan of using tools we already have. :) Given that https://discuss.python.org/ already exists, using that in the future seems fairly reasonable to me? There's also nothing stopping folks from starting a thread there now, of course, but I interpret Ewa's point as "We didn't let the candidates know this was expected of them, so it's not super fair to start this discussion there now. It's still a great idea, and we should do that next time." I agree with that, because otherwise it's an unfair advantage to the candidates who are closely following this thread and know to show up to the forum. PJJ http://philipjohnjames.com On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Maria Petri Betto < maria.betto@u.northwestern.edu> wrote:
I also like this idea. I think the existing Slack workspace could also fit this purpose well. Though a PSF Mastodon instance would be cool in general and wouldn't require logging in to Slack.
Best,
Maria
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 1:25 PM Jurnell Cockhren <jurnell@civichacker.com> wrote:
Hey all, My company, Civic Hacker, can provide a private Mastodon instance for this purpose or similar. I would love to help the PSF in such a tangible way.
Jurnell
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:13 PM Ewa Jodlowska <ewa@python.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:00 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Hello,
One thing that's been helpful in the CPython developer community is a message board (Discourse in this case, but the specifics don't matter) where we could ask questions to the various Steering Committee candidates. This would be welcome for the PSF board elections as well.
That's a great idea.
Since candidates were not given a heads up to prepare or put aside time, we will add this for next year. _______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
-- Jurnell Cockhren Founder @ Civic Hacker https://civichacker.com _______________________________________________ PSF-Vote mailing list PSF-Vote@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-vote
_______________________________________________ PSF-Vote mailing list PSF-Vote@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-vote
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:50 PM Philip James <pjj@philipjohnjames.com> wrote:
While I'm a huge fan of Mastodon (I run wandering.shop), I'm a bigger fan of using tools we already have. :) Given that https://discuss.python.org/ already exists, using that in the future seems fairly reasonable to me?
There's also nothing stopping folks from starting a thread there now, of course, but I interpret Ewa's point as "We didn't let the candidates know this was expected of them, so it's not super fair to start this discussion there now. It's still a great idea, and we should do that next time."
I agree with that, because otherwise it's an unfair advantage to the candidates who are closely following this thread and know to show up to the forum.
Not to mention the fact that voting has already started, so getting people to invest time to ask questions may be too much to ask :). I do like the idea of giving people a chance to get to know the candidates better, though, so I would love for this to happen (as Ewa said, next year) -- but in that case, I feel there should be some room between the candidates being announced and the actual election.
PJJ http://philipjohnjames.com
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Maria Petri Betto < maria.betto@u.northwestern.edu> wrote:
I also like this idea. I think the existing Slack workspace could also fit this purpose well. Though a PSF Mastodon instance would be cool in general and wouldn't require logging in to Slack.
Best,
Maria
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 1:25 PM Jurnell Cockhren <jurnell@civichacker.com> wrote:
Hey all, My company, Civic Hacker, can provide a private Mastodon instance for this purpose or similar. I would love to help the PSF in such a tangible way.
Jurnell
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:13 PM Ewa Jodlowska <ewa@python.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:00 PM Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> wrote:
Hello,
One thing that's been helpful in the CPython developer community is a message board (Discourse in this case, but the specifics don't matter) where we could ask questions to the various Steering Committee candidates. This would be welcome for the PSF board elections as well.
That's a great idea.
Since candidates were not given a heads up to prepare or put aside time, we will add this for next year. _______________________________________________ PSF-Community mailing list PSF-Community@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
-- Jurnell Cockhren Founder @ Civic Hacker https://civichacker.com _______________________________________________ PSF-Vote mailing list PSF-Vote@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-vote
_______________________________________________ PSF-Vote mailing list PSF-Vote@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-vote
_______________________________________________ PSF-Vote mailing list PSF-Vote@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-vote
-- Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org> Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me spread!
participants (11)
-
Antoine Pitrou -
David Mertz -
Ewa Jodlowska -
Ewa Jodlowska -
Ian Stapleton Cordasco -
Jurnell Cockhren -
Maria Petri Betto -
Mark Moretto -
Naomi Ceder -
Philip James -
Thomas Wouters