Voter mechanisms to recall individual candidates

[KiaraGrouwstra]

Question

Over the past days, there have been multiple calls for individual SC candidates to step down, or even calling for a full reelection.

Current procedures have yet to take into account such desires, meaning we would currently depend on either:

• SC members voting one another out (re: individual SC members)
• SC votes of no confidence (c.f. Should the SC vote for confidence instead of for no-confidence? #472)

Would you rather see such a formal mechanism to retroactively retract/amend votes or recall individual delegates? If yes, what should this look like? If not, why not?

Candidates I'd like to get an answer from

No response

[crertel]

I'm against this, because the incentives and resultant behavior are all wrong--we've already seen this with public pressure campaigns targeting particular members.

If the SC can't somehow manage to route around a bad member, we have bigger problems that removing one member won't fix. If it's multiple members, that's an issue for the yearly elections.

The boring thing is just to accept that you sometimes get a lemon, and you deal with them until the next election. Let's be boring.

---

Vote Boring Nix.

[pluiedev]

If we completely ignore the implications here (that the entire composition of the SC could be changed on a whim and destabilize the entire organization), I think even just from a logistics perspective it would be very difficult to track and tally each request, especially if they are directed against a specific member.

I think a public referendum and/or a vote of confidence are already sufficient mechanisms for people to voice their disapproval for incumbent SC members, though we should make them clear that they are not to be ordinary occurrences, and that once you vote for a candidate you are in most instances willing to trust their judgement and good faith for the duration of their term.

[niklaskorz]

I think the constitutional amendment proposed in NixOS/org#181 would already be a great improvement to prevent deadlock situations. Beyond that, I propose to give eligible voters of the last completed SC election the possibility to initiate:

• Special Elections for vacant seats, with the support of a quarter the amount of people that participated in the last regular election.
• A full re-election, with the support of two thirds the amount of people that participated in the last regular election.

I do not think a mechanism to vote out specific candidates from outside the SC to be beneficial, but I also proposed an automatic retirement mechanism for SC members that have been inactive for a significant amount of time.

[philiptaron]

Stability is really important. @pluiedev has it right:

1. Recalls would be logistically difficult to track.
2. They would destabilize the Steering Council by allowing frequent composition changes.
3. Votes of confidence (with adjustments) provide sufficient mechanisms to indicate that the SC isn't working.
4. Voters should trust their elected candidates' judgment for the full term rather than treating recalls as routine.

So, we should adopt no new mechanisms. As I wrote in #265 (comment):

My position: Fix the processes first. If after one term of structural transparency and accountability the SC still can't function, then I'll support reducing the size¹. But we owe it to the community to try a fully-present, well-run 7-member committee before we conclude the structure itself is broken.

Footnotes

1. Or changing the recall functionality, or even yet more extreme changes. ↩

[tomberek]

Full agreement with @philiptaron. We are still bootstrapping, give the process a chance to work before upending it.

So, we should adopt no new mechanisms.

[pinpox]

We consider this to be a democratic election, so we should trust its result as such. The term of office is limited for that reason, allowing to chose a different person next time, if you are not happy with their work.

[mschwaig]

In my eyes, votes of no-confidence and special elections are good mechanisms to deal with legitimate issues of ethics and overreach. Elected embers of the SC should be able to stay on for the duration of their term, except for serious issues like serious misconduct.

The SC being unpopular for a period of time is something our institutions should tolerate, so that the SC can actually adapt to change and make the difficult and possibly controversial decisions it might need to make to benefit our community in the long term.

If every decision the SC makes needs really broad support, the is not much benefit we gain from having an SC at all. The SC would be stuck with lots of formal power that it cannot actually use in practice, fearing backlash.

Alternatively, if the SC enacts a policy with less broad support anyways, its power could be easily challenged to force a special election, making us pay the social costs for the change it initiates, without reaping the potential benefits from follow-through.

In any case a recall mechanism would go contrary to our need for a long term direction of the project, which everyone else can understand and plan with.

What we should to to address this issue is ensure that the we are operating with a full and present SC that can unambigiously make crucial determinations like no-confidence votes. I appreciate @philiptaron comment on this: #265 (comment). In my eyes it is also worth considering schemes that draw from previous election results to keep the SC full.

[nyabinary]

Yes, I think there should be a clear mechanism for recall through a petition system managed by the EC. The EC would be responsible for collecting and verifying petitions, and once a sufficient threshold is met, the issue would move to a community-wide vote. I also support automatic recall elections for SC members who repeatedly miss meetings or remain inactive without valid justification, as accountability and participation are essential to maintaining trust and effectiveness within the SC.

[getchoo]

I think voters should have the ability to petition for a member to be recalled. Once that petition grows to a specific number of eligible voters, a special election should then be held

I believe a similar system should also exist for voters calling for a Vote of No Confidence against the entire SC