[Foundation] [was no subject] Secret ballots ?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Aug 22 11:10:27 CDT 2002

Agreed. We'll keep the ballots closed and secret and so on. When I present
the proxy votes at the annual meeting, I will do so en masse (i.e., I will
say "I am acting at the proxy for members x, y, z, and the results of
those proxy votes are 1 zillion votes for jer, 1 billion for temas,
etc."). That will save time in the meeting anyway....

In a future meeting of the members we can consider amending the bylaws to
this effect, but at this point it's too late for this year, per item 3.a
in the election process email I sent on 2002-08-14:



Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Shawn Wilton wrote:

> Ok, plain and simple - Closed ballots.  
> Enough discussion already, please.  This really doesn't need to be
> discussed at long lengths and considered over and over again.  Just
> leave the ballots closed and be done with it.  It's always a better idea
> anyway.  Besides, I won't vote unless it is closed and I'm sure a good
> chunk of the members feel the same.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On
> Behalf Of Martin Rogard
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:21 AM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: RE : [Foundation] [was no subject] Secret ballots ?
> I totally second Greg's statement. The purpose here is the interest of
> the JSF not individuals IMHO, and influence on votes by corporations are
> bad for the JSF therefore I really don't see the point of closed
> ballots.
> <off topic>
> On those days of massive regulation by corporation and their blatant
> incapacity to behave in good citizens of this world, it's time to think
> in the interest of our subject : the community. 
> </off topic>
> I failed to find a link to the bylaws on j.o, is there a way to propose
> an ammendment in this direction ?
> - martin
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > There's always going to be some threat of employers
> > influencing how their employees vote, even if we were to have 
> > a super-secure means of communicating the vote, someones boss 
> > could hover over their shoulder and encourage them to vote a 
> > certain way.
> > 
> > But with that concern in mind, what kind of people and
> > companies do we want to be in the Jabber Software Foundation? 
> >  I don't have access to the JSF membership list in an easily 
> > manipulated format at the moment, but it looks like a fair 
> > number of people are Individuals.  I don't see that there's 
> > any company that has anywhere near the number of JSF members 
> > as there are individuals, let alone enough to have a major 
> > impact on the outcome of an election by strong-arming their 
> > employees votes.  
> > 
> > If companies are using these 'strong-arm' tactics, are they
> > really appropriate for the JSF?  I wouldn't be willing to 
> > work for any company that tried to force me to vote a certain 
> > way.  Among other things, it means that they're probably not 
> > honest in other business dealings, and that they don't have 
> > any confidence in their ability to communicate their ideas 
> > effectively to the rest of the JSF, the council, and the 
> > board.  I don't want these companies involved with Jabber 
> > because their decisions won't be the ones that are best for Jabber.
> > 
> > Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant.  But unless there's
> > a better reason for secret ballots (until somebody comes up 
> > with a decent explanation, closed ballot == ballot that only 
> > registered people can cast), I'm wholeheartedly opposed to them.
> > 	Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members

More information about the Members mailing list