[Members] Proposal 2 - Tie resolution proposal

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Oct 19 09:53:50 CDT 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/8/09 6:31 PM, anders conbere wrote:
> 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
> consensus.
> 
> What do people think about anonymity, do we just give that up for the
> runoff process?

If we had a smart bot in the room it could know who all the members are
and send an instant poll to each member, preferably using data forms.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkrcfX4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vw7vQCg60GiJJxsgwD25fpdNj7DuvsU
VEEAoPU3LCffo2hhszPusy3KFOVLY8YF
=tRIc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Members mailing list