[Members] Proposal 2 - Tie resolution proposal

anders conbere aconbere at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 19:31:03 CDT 2009

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Jack Moffitt <jack at collecta.com> wrote:
>> Right, that's what meetings are for. In the past we've told people that
>> the meetings don't matter, it all happens via memberbot. Clearly that's
>> not the case, but we couldn't have known until we experienced such a
>> situation.
> I think it's the expectation (based on experience) that these are just
> a formality and do not produce actual work. I was quite surprised the
> meeting was quorate to begin with, and I can totally understand why
> people would be upset.
> However, going forward, it is easy to make it clear that these
> meetings are more than a formality and that real decisions may be
> made.  If such an expectation is given, and appropriate arrangements
> made to announce the meetings and hold them at relatively convenient
> times, I don't see why that system would cause more frustration.

I can get behind this. I agree that the only reason anyone would have
felt left out of the process this time is because they weren't there.
But also that they weren't there because as stated above they have
largely been considered a formality.

> The real issue with runoff elections is that it's enough of an ordeal
> to get people to vote a single time. It seems like it would be a large
> burden to have to immediately repeat the process sometimes. Of course,
> if it's what is desired, we can certainly do it in the future.

I presume that any runoff elections would only be a vote for any ties.
In which case make a decision between one two or even three folks is
much less effort than say... 20 members or even the 15 or so board +
council members. I can't imagine it would be too difficult supposing
that we strongly encouraged participation in the meeting to find

What do people think about anonymity, do we just give that up for the
runoff process?

~ Anders

> jack.

More information about the Members mailing list