If ZCG would have voted earlier to have Beth as ZCG outreach coordinator, GGuy and Wobbzz would have been running for 2 open seats.
What does ZF do in such a circumstance? Does ZF call an election? Do the candidates automatically get elected? Does ZF keep the candidate nominations open indefinitely until there is more than 2 candidates running? If ZF does call an election for 2 candidates running for 2 open seats; does the candidate that gets less than 50% approval not get elected?
Its been more than 12 hours since Dan posted ZCGs intention to have Beth on as ZCG outreach coordinator. I expect ZF to move quite quickly to resolve this.
I look forward to ZFs response to mine and other community members questions and concerns.
Changing the voting rules in the middle of a poll confuses voters, and leads to questions about the reliability of the poll result.
If we want to require 50% voter or panel approval for future votes, that sounds like a great discussion to have. (But only after this poll has finished, to avoid confusing voters.)
Personally I would prefer some kind of preferential voting, because it gives voters a way to express a more nuanced opinion on who they want elected. This is particularly important when there are a large number of candidates for a small number of positions. But it can matter even when there are three candidates for one position. (Or four for two.)
It might also be helpful to create a quick summary of “how ZCAP does polls”. That way, we don’t need to decide new rules every time, or check if the rules are the same as last time.
Agree 100%. That’s why we’re letting the poll run its course.
The potential (but I think unlikely) scenario that we face here is one where Beth receives more approval votes than one (or both) of the other candidates.
Fortunately, we have somewhat of a precedent in how SJL’s seat on the committee was filled after she resigned - the seat was offered to the first runner up in the election (DC from ECC) who declined, leading to it being offered to the second runner up (@ml_sudo), who accepted. I see no reason not to take the same approach here.
I don’t think it matters. What it does expose is how non-independent they truly are. It’s a good sign, because in the end it will allow ZCG to grow its reach.
It would be nice if this page were updated to reflect what’s going on with Beth’s candidacy, since that’s the link sent out via email to ZCAP panelists. I don’t look at the forums very often so I had no idea.
Even though I advocated for canceling the poll, I nonetheless put in my ceremonious ballot for GGuy and Wobbzz out of respect for their dedicated service to our shared mission
I hope the confusion around the election doesn’t detract from their deserved appointments.
Of more concern is the fact you didn’t see the email. Can you check your Spam folder?
It’s not in my spam folder. I had searched “zcash foundation” earlier in my email account to find the link to the poll, and every email regarding the poll except the email discussing Beth’s withdrawal showed up because that email from “Helios Voting Bot” (the one you posted a picture of) happened to not contain the text “zcash foundation” in it.
@wobbzz is re-elected to the committee, and they will be joined by new member @GGuy. Congratulations to you both!
I want to thank @Beth. Although she ended up withdrawing her candidacy, her ideas and contributions to the discussion were both valuable and welcome, and I particularly enjoyed her enthusiasm and positivity during the Community Call with the candidates.
@Beth: Thank you! I’m really pleased you’ll be involved in supporting ZCG going forward!
