[Foundation] [was no subject] Secret ballots ?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Aug 22 11:15:20 CDT 2002


BTW, if item #2.3 on the agenda passes, we will be having quarterly
meetings and votes to accept new members, so we could change this
officially as early as October.

http://www.jabber.org/discuss/2002-09-04.html

Or we could always call a special meeting before October if y'all feel
really strongly about it. :)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> 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:
> http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2002-August/001275.html
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Peter
> 
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 




More information about the Members mailing list