Mathieu Amo wrote:
On 6/6/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
To remove the bias of large language groups or large projects and to make elections a less painful system, we might also rely on a system of "grand electeurs" (each language/project nominate a couple of people to vote in their name). The "grand electeurs " group being more likely to elect people based on their participation on Foundation issues, rather than purely on their fame.
I really like this idea, but it will be a tricky work to write down a policy for this kind of elections. This sounds a lot like the US Electoral College (that's where it's come from, I guess), but I think it will give us everything we need : the possibilty for the communities to really express themselves, and the assurance that the electors will have a good knowledge of the Foundation and its works. However, this would mean more wiki-politics. And nobody likes that.
Is the whole issue really a problem? It only would be if everyone votes mainly for "their" people, but I'm not sure that's the case, and instituting a system like that might actually make it happen. When the first board elections were held, for example, Americans made up at least a plurality of those voting, possibly a majority, and yet the two winners were French and British (and the next-most-supported was German).
-Mark