This might be a stupid question, but it seems that votes of the SC are ending up in tie a lot recently, while the threshold is 4/6 ? Sorry this is a bit complicated to me, because i haven’t followed it closely due to the amount of discussion going on. Wouldn’t it be easier to have a odd number of members to ensure ensure that there is no even split and affirm a strong position?
The idea is genuinely so simple that i cant believe to not have seen it. mentioned I cannot see why this could be bad, can you guys give me your opinion about this?
I agree that this is the best solution going forward. The SC recently unanimously (among members present in the meeting) voted to keep a standing Election Committee, precisely so that it easier to hold special elections and we get can back to 7 quicker.
In this specific situation, we are already holding an election very soon, so I don’t think an additional election even sooner is necessary. After the election, we will be back to 7 members.
Oh this happened a month ago, was is intentional to not introduce someone else until the new vote? Or was it some sort of unplanned gap? that could be fixed to present future problems
At that point the steering committee was not fighting amongst itself, and we (IIRC) had never had a 3-4 or 4-3 vote on any subject, actually being in broad agreement on most topics. I don’t think anyone saw the current conflict coming — at least I didn’t.
I hope you will (everyone in the SC) be able to get this working! It looks like a lot of weight and pressure to keep such role in hard time like this, and i am sure we will eventually do it.
I believe you deserve compliment for you work, everyone, because you are all probably very tired people but yet still there to for us. Thanks you for that, i would have screw it up by a long time if i were on such a position
Just for the context, one month ago is much later than the current election preparations (e.g. call for EC applications) have started.
The current EC timeline — after EC has decided on most procedures, not counting from appointment — is roughly two months after starting the first procedures. One month is a bit shorter than some nation-states, much better equipped to run elections quickly, allow for snap elections.
Some statements here sound like no vote can come through the current SC, but that doesn’t seem the case. For example
on this meeting actually the 7th member wouldn’t be able to change any of those votes, if I read them right. (last one is 3 vs. 3 but needed supermajority)
Maybe organizationally, the SC should consider a tie-breaker in the event that SC members stepped down, are missing or are otherwise unable to vote. It could be the vote of an observer (which were talked about to introduce as well), or a community poll, or a somehow predetermined ex-member or whatever can be agreed upon and added to the constitution.
The current constitution explicitly talks about this, and suggest a special election just for this position, if the SC think that’s a good idea. Don’t know why that last clause was added.
The reason for the last clause is actually related to the next section: if a supermajority decision on removal for conduct cannot be reached, but a majority still thinks the situation is unacceptable, they can call for a reelection.
(A case where it needs to work is e.g. circumstantial evidence — also not the SC’s evidence to share in public — of fraud against vulnerable human persons with a police investigation expected to run for a year or two. Where lies the line for conduct-based removal and for triggering full reelection is necessarily left to SC discretion.)