Elections aren't always contested

[martinthomson]

The 2025 TAG election wasn't run because the number of candidates was equal to the number of positions.

This does our community no favors. We're lucky this time in that the people involved all seem good, but that's no guarantee. Having a contest for positions is healthy.

Rather than allow positions to be filled without contest, I recommend that the process require that positions with one seat include at least two people and positions with N seats require some number of candidates, more than N (I suggest floor((N + 1)/3)+1 if you want to get fancy; I'd like a lower denominator, but this is a recognition of recent reality), before an election can be held.

The failure mode is obvious: if the threshold cannot be met then the position(s) won't be filled. I suggest that this is already a problem and that it doesn't require extra special handling. We could get N-1 candidates. However, if a fix is desired, I would suggest that the AC be consulted to approve an election, or assignment without vote, proceeding with fewer than the target number.

[cwilso]

The failure mode is obvious: if the threshold cannot be met then the position(s) won't be filled.

Are you suggesting that if we hold a TAG election for four seats, but only get four candidates, we wouldn't fill ANY seats that year?

I guess I am concerned about the quality of candidates if we require "filler candidates" in order to proceed. I might propose a different resolution: If fewer than N+1 candidates are nominated, the nomination period is automatically extended by two weeks. (If still fewer than N+1 candidates at the end of that period, then do what we do now.)

[martinthomson]

Extending the nomination period is fine, but I would prefer that the AC approve what we do now, rather than just have it default through.

I have no position on the concept of "filler candidates". They would, presumably be real people.

[nigelmegitt]

I have no position on the concept of "filler candidates". They would, presumably be real people.

To @cwilso 's point, this directs to a reductio ad absurdum against the proposal in this issue: you could meet the minimum candidate criteria by somehow encouraging enough people from the set [anyone] to stand (the "filler" candidates), regardless of their potential suitability or indeed willingness to participate if somehow elected. That doesn't seem like any kind of improvement on the current N candidates for N posts -> no election. It adds risk and work, when the best result would be that the original candidates get elected.

I appreciate the motivation behind the issue @martinthomson however it's important to have some kind of mechanism for ensuring that reasonable people stand. Even if it were something mechanical like "pick randomly from the set [Rec track spec editors]" the resulting pool would make more sense, since there would at least be some level of technical competence. Of course, potentially compelling people to be TAG members, with all the commitment and expense that entails, and without any other support, would be rude at best, not to mention extremely unhelpful to any individuals caught up in something they never intended.