If all you keen voters out there did the same, you'd carefully read the rules governing Eclipse's Election Process. Following the various links, you'd eventually find this quote in the bylaws:
Committer Members who are employed by the same organization (including Affiliates thereof as defined in Section 6.2) shall have only one (1) collective vote with respect to election of the Committer Directors as well as any and all matters that come before the Membership At-Large, and such collective vote shall be determined by a simple majority of such Committer Members sharing the same employer as described above.It clearly spells out that each of IBM's 200 active committers have 1/200 of a vote compared to each of the roughly 200 active individual committers (based on Nick's committer data). In other words, the individual committers have 4,000 times more influence over the outcome in the vote than does an one IBM committer. In fact, they will dominate the vote. Ouch!
To me, that hardly seems fair. Though granted, some individuals contribute a great deal and aren't even paid, so that evens the score a little. But clearly I won't be doing a lot of campaigning inside IBM! Their votes and mine are practically worthless. I'll definitely have to find green pastures, or is that bluer seas?
I wonder how the foundation reconciles the "simple majority" statement above with the single transferable voting approach? Inquiring minds want to know.
It would seem to me that single transferable voting is different from simple majority voting. I think the foundation's bylaws need review and updating.
To finish off my rant, I'd like to say something bad about each of the other candidates to ensure my own election victory. Unfortunately, I can only think of good things to say about all them. What fun is that? The best I can do is suggest you follow me. I'll make sure we end up somewhere very cool.
I just hope no one finds those embarrassing pictures of me and uses them to tarnish my reputation...