# Do we have an election date yet for the SGB?

**URL:** <https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/do-we-have-an-election-date-yet-for-the-sgb/11375>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [October 13, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/do-we-have-an-election-date-yet-for-the-sgb/11375 "2019-10-13T16:22:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon75146577](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f07891/32.png) [@anon75146577](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/anon75146577)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/do-we-have-an-election-date-yet-for-the-sgb/11375/1 "2019-10-13T16:22:30Z")

</div>

Just checking in because the provisional SGB is so far beyond it’s expiry date that if it were a person we’d be identifying it by dental records. So it probably shouldn’t still be making decisions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![anon75146577](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f07891/32.png) [@anon75146577](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/anon75146577)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 4:28am UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/do-we-have-an-election-date-yet-for-the-sgb/11375/2 "2019-10-14T04:28:56Z")

</div>

Just re-upping this because a different thread says they’re meeting on Monday and it’s unclear to me how they still have decision making powers. (I know it’s Sunday now but this is a thing that should probably be answered now rather than later)

The whole electorate (basically [@Stan\_Development\_Team](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/groups/stan_development_team)) had to vote to extend last time and we did 27 to 2 but any decision the SGB has made or will make since 30 September (2 months after the vote passed, which is the most generous interpretation of the text of the vote) exceeded, exceeds, or will exceed what we voted for. So it’s not valid and the SGB can certainly meet on Monday as a collection of friends but it’s very unclear to me they have any sort of statutory or decision making power. (Full disclosure - I was on the SGB and left partly because it was being extended past July and I had other priorities after that date.)

So it’s definitely time for elections? Right? And the SGB can no longer make decisions? Right?

I’d suggest politely that we do the tech lead and the repo lead elections at the same time. Because everything that currently exists there has never been voted on.

We can’t continue with a zombie board.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mitzimorris](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/mitzimorris/32/29_2.png) [@mitzimorris](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/mitzimorris)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 9:51am UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/do-we-have-an-election-date-yet-for-the-sgb/11375/3 "2019-10-14T09:51:20Z")

</div>

> [@anon75146577](#):
>
> So it’s definitely time for elections? Right? And the SGB can no longer make decisions? Right?

time for elections - yes!

regarding the SGB’s inability to make decisions - here’s what’s been said so far:

the post regarding the extension granted in august laid out a timetable - [https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/vote-two-2-month-extension-of-provisional-sgb-authority-to-oct-23-2019](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/vote-two-2-month-extension-of-provisional-sgb-authority-to-oct-23-2019)

> [@On another topic](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/9824/1):
>
> 1. The big reason is that we want to expand the electorate beyond what it is now. That will take some time, 2 months seems appropriate since we have to develop the idea further (by August 15), have a vote by ‘Stan Development Team Only’ expanding the electorate (Sept 1), and then get the new people into the electorate by the time of the SGB elections (October 23).

this has not happened. there was some discussion on discourse - [Stan Electorate for Referendums and Elections](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/stan-electorate-for-referendums-and-elections/10134)  
which started with a misstatement:

> [@Stan Electorate for Referendums and Elections](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/stan-electorate-for-referendums-and-elections/10134/1):
>
> The SGB has been doing some good work with a around a $150k year budget, setting up the Technical Working Group (TWG) and there is more to come

which was later corrected [TWG Definition/Roles. Call for feedback/ideas/refinement](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/twg-definition-roles-call-for-feedback-ideas-refinement/11094)

> [@TWG Definition/Roles. Call for feedback/ideas/refinement](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/twg-definition-roles-call-for-feedback-ideas-refinement/11094/1):
>
> A big bit of unfinished SGB (Stan Governing Body) business is the definition and creation of the Technical Working Group (TWG).

the discussions on discourse around the roadmap have been unproductive and the last few posts regarding a change to the sampler’s adaptation [Request for Volunteers to Test Adaptation Tweak](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/request-for-volunteers-to-test-adaptation-tweak/9532) are alarming.

so yeah, I agree with Dan - maybe it’s time to let the old ways die.

the current electorate will need to sort out what to do next - perhaps we want to hash things out on Discourse, or else designate an interim committee to come up with a proposal that can be voted on - (maybe even amended!)

regarding “current electorate” - it was defined summer of 2018 as members of the Discourse group “Stan Development Team” [Stan development team - The Stan Forums](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/g/Stan_Development_Team). there are 39 members, 3 of whom - Rayleigh, JiQaing (original version of RStan!), and Marco Inacio haven’t logged in since 2018. this group includes 5 members of the current SGB - Andrew Gelman, Daniel Lee, Jonah Gabry, Michael Betancourt, and Sean Talts. I respectfully request that they step aside and let the rest of the electorate sort things out. they have all made their points at great length already and it is well-recorded in Discourse (or was - the roadmap discussions have been unlinked). as Tom Lehrer once said (“New Math”) - “I know my commenters, so please - let’s not see the same hands …”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sakrejda](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/sakrejda/32/845_2.png) [@sakrejda](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/sakrejda)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 10:02am UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/do-we-have-an-election-date-yet-for-the-sgb/11375/4 "2019-10-14T10:02:51Z")

</div>

> [@anon75146577](#):
>
> So it’s definitely time for elections? Right? And the SGB can no longer make decisions? Right?
> 
> I’d suggest politely that we do the tech lead and the repo lead elections at the same time. Because everything that currently exists there has never been voted on.
> 
> We can’t continue with a zombie board.

Without getting into details I agree that having set up governance it’s important to take it seriously.

> [@mitzimorris](#):
>
> time for elections - yes!

Same from my point of view: time for elections

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![andrewgelman](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex030/user_avatar/discourse.mc-stan.org/andrewgelman/32/1577_2.png) [@andrewgelman](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/u/andrewgelman)\
**Post date:** [October 14, 2019, 10:34am UTC](https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/do-we-have-an-election-date-yet-for-the-sgb/11375/5 "2019-10-14T10:34:38Z")

</div>

Hi all. Thanks for the reminders. As Mitzi wrote, the plan is to have election on 23 Oct. I don’t want to speak for the whole board here so just giving this quick reply so that people know that someone is reading this and we’re aware of the situation!