RE: [PEAR-DEV] Resolving the PEAR Group election tie

Hi, Greg Beaver wrote: > > Hi, > > Congratulations to the newly elected PEAR Group members, this > will be an > exciting time as PEAR moves forward. > > I regret that the constitution as accepted does not have a system in > place to resolve ties in the election - I did not anticipate this > problem. Murphy is of course always around to remind us that whatever > can go wrong will go wrong. > > Fortunately, the constitution DOES prescribe what to do in > order to make > a decision on this matter. We need to amend the constitution to > proscribe how to solve this issue. Amending the constitution > is done by > a vote of 2/3 of the PEAR Group. The constitution says 5 of 7 are > required. Fortunately, 2/3 of 8 = 5 1/3 so rounding says 5 of 8 are > required to amend the constitution. > > So, as my first act as elected president, I must recommend that the > elected PEAR group convene (all 8 of them)via email and amend the > constitution to describe how to resolve a tie in elections. > I see 4 options > > 1) a run-off election between Justin and Paul > 2) an intra-PEAR Group election > 3) keep the current membership and amend the constitution for the next > election 1 year from now, and add a provision for tie breaks to the > constitution. > 4) Either Justin or Paul steps down In the spirit of the constitution, it should be for "the people" to decide (i.e. an election between Justin and Paul, open to all developers). It is true that the constitution does not provide a solution for this exact problem, but it is still the constitution we have to interpret to resolve this. The constitution lists the following as a responsibility of the president: "Appoint people to fill temporary vacancies on PEAR Group until election can be held". I suggest we apply this solution (holding an election to fill the vacancy) to our problem. IMHO this is the only constitutional approach. Keeping both Justin and Paul (i.e. having 8 developers in the pear group) is not an option. The constitution clearly states that the pear group consists of 7 developers. Leaving legislative decisions to the present as a tie breaker would somehow also beat the purpose of having an independent body of government - because some decisions they simply couldn't make by themselves. sorry for the technical approach, but this is a law student speaking :) [snipped ...] Cheers, Lukas