board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Member Vote on Admins: Voting Done

Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 103 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Jnyusa
Post subject: Member Vote on Admins: Voting Done
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 12:47 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
BALLOT FOR REVIEW

THIS IS NOW A TWO PART BALLOT.

In Part One, it is proposed to overturn a vote of the membership. Another procedure with options is proposed instead. Part Two of the Ballot provides options for those who wish to retain a vote of the membership.

EVERYONE MUST ANSWER QUESTION 1. After that, proceed to either Part One or Part Two.

Question 1: Agreement to overturn

A. I agree to overturn the vote of the membership and will vote on the options in Part One of this ballot. Proceed to Part One, Questions 2 through 7

B. I wish to retain a vote of the membership and will vote on the options in Part Two of this ballot. Skip Questions 2 through 6 and Proceed to Part Two, Questions 8 through 13

PART ONE:

Question 2:
I agree to the following text:

“The Mayor is held accountable for determining what constitutes a ‘continuous, visible, and contributory presence,’ approaching members so qualified to obtain their agreement to serve, and entering the names of those who volunteer into the pool of admins-in-training. That roster will be prominently posted, and volunteers will remain on the training roster for at least [ten] days.

A. I agree to the text and to the ten days.
B. I agree to the text, but prefer [#] days. insert the number of days your prefer.
C. I do not agree to the text

Question 3: I agree to the following text stating that concerns and suggestions will be submitted by email, and I will vote on who should review them in the next question:

“While volunteers are on the training roster, all members are responsible for reviewing the roster to determine whether they know any good reason why a particular volunteer would not make a good administrator and should not immediately enter the pool of full admins when their training is complete. If no member expresses a concern or objection volunteers will enter the pool of full admins without delay. If a member does have a concern or objection to a particular volunteer, these must be sent by email to the [Mayor][Admins account, where they may also be forwarded to the Mayor] so that the [Mayor][current Admins][Mayor together with current Admins] can review them for merit.”

SELECT
A. I agree to the text
B. I do not agree to the text

Question 4: Concerns and objections should be reviewed by:

SELECT ONE
A. The Mayor alone
B. The current Admins alone
C. The Mayor together with the current Admins

Question 5: I agree to the following text

“If the concern or objection involves a serious violation of by-laws for which a formal action of some kind is required, then the volunteer will not enter the pool of full admins until the issue is resolved. The Mayor and current Admins together will inform the volunteer immediately, attempt to verify the merit of the accusation insofar as possible, and if it has merit they will initiate whatever procedure is called for in the by-laws. If exonerated, the volunteer may enter the pool of full admins when training is complete. If restrictions are placed on the volunteer as a result of the procedure, they will not enter the pool of full admins until the by-laws allow them to do so.”

A. I agree to the text
B. I do not agree to the text

Question 6: I agree to the following text

“If the concern or objection involves matters of courtesy, or unfamiliarity with certain forums, or anything else affecting only the comfort level of the members, [the Mayor][the Mayor or an appropriate admin] will explain the problem to the volunteer as tactfully as possible and suggest ways that their posting might become more “visible and contributory” before they enter the pool of full admins.”

SELECT ONE:
A. I agree to the text and would like the mayor alone to be responsible for conveying this kind of information

B. I agree to the text and would like the mayor and admins to be free to decide who could best convey the information to the volunteer.

C. I do not agree to the text

Question 7: I agree to the following text

“The Mayor will retain record of these concerns and objections and make sure that any full Admin who is coaching the volunteer knows of them as well. When the volunteer expresses his/her readiness to enter the pool of admins, including their correction of any prior deficiency, and the full Admin who has been coaching them agrees, the Mayor will send an email to any member who has raised a prior objection and ask permission to lift the objection, explaining what has been done to rectify the problem. If the member still objects, they must explain why and the issue will be revisited as before. If no response is received within [seven] days, the objection will be lifted and the volunteer may enter the pool of full admins. The pool of full admins will be posted prominently”

SELECT ONE:

A. I agree to the text, including seven days for lifting objections.

B. I agree to the text, but not to the seven days. I prefer [#] days. insert the number of days you prefer

C. I do not agree to the text

**** END OF PART ONE ****

PART TWO:


Question 8: Approve the following opening clause:

The Mayor is held accountable for determining what constitutes a “continuous, visible, and contributory presence,” approaching members so qualified to obtain their agreement to serve, and offering their names in groups for an approval vote of the whole membership. These votes will be held with sufficient frequency that there will be no more than ten candidates presented at one time.

A. Yes
B. No

Question 9: Voting Method: Rank your choices. There are eight choices, A through H. Pairs of choices differ only by the percentage required for approval. A Quick Summary of the key differences between methods is provided at the end of all the choices.

A . The Prim Method: A thread is placed in the proper forum listing all candidate admins, and a yes/no poll is included. Members vote “yes” or “no” to accept or reject the entire list. Members who vote "no" must send an email to the Admin account specifying which candidate(s) they do not accept.

The number of “no” votes will be counted as equal to the number of emails sent to the Admin account. Anonymous “no” votes in the thread will not count toward the total votes cast.

If the “yes” votes equal 67% or more of the total votes cast, the entire list will be accepted.

If the “yes” votes equal 66% or less, the “no” votes will be counted to determine whether any individual candidate received “no” votes equal to 33% of the total votes cast. If the “no” votes are split among the candidates in such a way that no candidate received 33% or more, then all candidates on the list are accepted. An email which lists objections to more than one candidate will be counted as one vote against each of those candidates, and one vote toward the total number of votes cast.

Any individual candidate who receives “no” votes equal to or greater than 33% of the total vote will not be accepted into the pool of administrators.

B. The Prim Method, with “yes” votes needing to be greater than or equal to 75% of total votes cast in order for the entire list to be accepted, and an individual candidate needing to receive “no” votes equal to or greater than 25% of total votes cast in order to be rejected.

C. The laureanna Method: A thread is placed in the proper forum listing all the candidate admins and a poll is included. The poll will take the form:
• Accept all
• Accept all but [candidate name], with one such poll option for each candidate
• More than one candidate is not acceptable

If the voter objects to more than one candidate, they must send an email to the Admins account listing the candidates to whom they object. [They must include their reasons.][They may include reasons but this is not obligatory.] The email will be counted as one vote against each of the candidates listed, and one vote toward the total number of votes cast.
In Question #10 you may vote between the sentences in brackets or to exclude both of them.

An individual candidate must receive “no” votes greater than or equal to 33% of the total votes cast in order to be rejected.

D. The laureanna Method, but an individual candidate must receive “no” votes greater than or equal to 25% of the total votes cast in order to be rejected.

E. A thread is placed in the proper forum containing a ballot which members must copy into an email and send to the Admin account in order to cast their vote. The ballot will list each candidate separately with a yes/no choice beside their name. [A 'No' vote must include the reason.][A 'No' vote may include the reason but this is not obligatory.] One ballot choice will also be, “approval of all candidates,” and this will be counted as one “yes” vote for each candidate and one vote toward the number of total votes cast. Any candidate receiving “yes” votes greater than or equal to 67% of the total votes cast will be accepted.
In Question #10 you may vote between the sentences in brackets or to exclude both of them.

F. The same method as E, but any candidate receiving “yes” votes greater than or equal to 75% of the total votes cast will be accepted.

G. A separate thread for each candidate is placed in the proper forum with a yes/no poll. Any candidate receiving at least 67% approval will be accepted. The vote in this case is anonymous and no explanations could be given.

H. The same as G, but any candidate receiving at least 75% approval will be accepted.

Quick summary of the choices:
The Prim Method (A, B) Votes against individual candidates cannot be seen by the candidates.
The laureanna Method (C, D) Votes against individual candidates can be seen by the candidates, except where the voter opposed multiple candidates
The balloting is done by email (E, F) and members may vote on each candidate separately
Public poll on each candidate (G, H)


Rank your choices, with #1 being most preferred:
#1=
#2=
#3=
#4=
#5=
#6=
#7=
#8=

Question 10: Public nature of opposition votes

SELECT ONE:

A. If the total number of opposition votes against a candidate is not visible because of the nature of the poll, this information will be posted for each candidate in an appropriate thread at the close of the vote.

B. The total number of opposition votes against a candidate will only be posted if it results in a candidate’s rejection and is not otherwise visible because of the nature of the poll.

C. The total number of opposition votes against a candidate will not be posted.

Question 11: Public nature of opposition comments:

A. Anyone casting a 'No' vote by email (except in the Prim Method) must give a reason for it , and these comments will be made available to any candidate upon request, with the voter’s name deleted, after the close of the vote.

B. Anyone casting a 'No' vote by email (except in the Prim Method) must give a reason for it, and these comments will be made available to rejected candidates only upon request, with the voter’s name deleted, after the close of the vote.

C. Anyone casting a 'No' vote by email (except in the Prim Method) has the option of providing a reason and these comments will be made available to any candidate upon request, with the voter’s name deleted, after the close of the vote.

D. Anyone casting a 'No' vote by email (except in the Prim Method) has the option of providing a reason and these comments will be made available to rejected candidates only upon request, with the voter’s name deleted, after the close of the vote.

E. No comments regarding a candidate should be made in any opposition email and the email should be treated as a secret ballot.

Rank your choices, with #1 being most preferred:
#1 =
#2 =
#3 =
#4 =
#5 =

Question 12: Approve this provision

“Candidate admins who are rejected by the vote of the membership may be placed on the list again in subsequent votes as many times as they wish.”

A. Yes
B. No

Question 13: Given that binding votes and quorums have not yet been defined but will be handled in Part IV of the Agenda, do you approve the following closing clause:

"The membership vote on candidates for administrator is a Binding Vote requiring a quorum as defined by the Charter, Article (.)"

A. Yes
B. No

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 18 Apr , 2005 8:09 pm, edited 21 times in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:07 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Oops. I overlooked that too, and I've been telling people there won't be votes. . . .

Would this work: Have a poll asking whether everyone in a particular batch was acceptable to serve as an admin, yes or no--and ask people who voted no to PM the objectionable name or names to the admin in charge of the vote?

Then if someone was named as objectionable by more than half the voters, they would not move on.

If "Yes" won the poll, there would be no need to tally the various "nos."

This would keep the poll simple and keep the objections to specific people private--those would only become public in the (surely rare) cases where someone up for the vote was actually objected to by more than half the voters. Otherwise no one but the admin running the vote would ever know.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:23 am
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
How many people would be in each batch vote?

Are we talking about three people? More?


What is the most number of people who would come up for membership approval at once?


Also, I think two-thirds approval should be needed --- I'm not trying to cause trouble here, but the article as it stands doesn't say anything about the percentage, only that an approval vote is needed. 50% is too low, in my opinion.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:31 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
In the structure as it's presently worked out, with regular votes, there are supposed to be 5 to 7 admins serving at any one time, with 8 different 3-month terms per year (multiple admins would serve the same term). Every 3 months there was supposed to be a vote on two terms at once. So the vote would have to produce 5 to 7 admins.

So, if those terms and the membership's preference as to number of votes are preserved, every three months there would have to be 5 to 7 new eligible admins. One batch of, say, no more than 8, every three months ought to cover that need--even with two-thirds approval, if that's the choice, I think it will be really rare for an admin candidate who's met the criteria in the mayor's judgment to then be rejected by the membership.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:58 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I've started editing suggestions into the first post.

I'm not happy with the opposition process. I included one option of my own in the above edit, but I don't even like my own suggestion.

Perhaps we could just list the names, leave them up for ~ 10 days for the members to see, and it would be a "speak now or forever hold your peace" vote. A member who objected to a potential admin would have to take the initiative to PM the mayor/current admins and state the reason for their objection. If no one actively objects, the person is considered approved.

Would one objection be enough in such a case? Could we suggest it go to the Bike Racks for resolution? Can the potential admin appeal a rejection?

Still thinking.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject: Re: Member Vote on Admins
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:25 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Some comments:
Jnyusa wrote:
How to disapprove:

Members vote No for the whole group, and send a PM to the Mayor/admins specifying who they object to and why.

Any potential admin who does not receive a one-half/two-thirds approval will not enter the pool.


Questions:

What if members vote no and don’t PM their reason? Do we only count no votes that come with a PM?
That was what I was thinking. Nonspecific objections should not be given weight.
Jnyusa wrote:
How many members have to vote for this to be legit?
A quorum, right?
Jnyusa wrote:
Possibility:

We could make this a PM vote only and lay it on the mayor. Up to ten names are listed, members paste the list into a PM and say yes/no to each.
Turnout might be a problem.

Also, an advantage of the poll system I suggested is that, if the agreed majority votes yes, no one has to tot up the PMed names because no one could have enough "no" votes to be rejected. Less administrative fiddling.
Jnyusa wrote:
Perhaps we could just list the names, leave them up for ~ 10 days for the members to see, and it would be a "speak now or forever hold your peace" vote. A member who objected to a potential admin would have to take the initiative to PM the mayor/current admins and state the reason for their objection. If no one actively objects, the person is considered approved.

Would one objection be enough in such a case? Could we suggest it go to the Bike Racks for resolution? Can the potential admin appeal a rejection?
I think this would be a can of worms. It would let personal dislike interfere with the process, and give one person control over whether someone became an admin. It would pull resentments out of the background, possibly out of the past on another board, and spread them all over the Bike Racks. I'm afraid to say this, but I think once we're open, probably most people would have at least one person who would be willing to do this to them.

I think there should be at least a clear one-third of the voters opposed before someone is turned down.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:38 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
laureanna just sent me this option by PM:

Ballot:
1. All four are acceptable
2. All but Joe are acceptable
3. All but Jane are acceptable
4. All but Fred are acceptable
5. All but Francis are acceptable
6. I have issues with 2 or 3 candidates and will PM (name)
7. I find all four unacceptable
8. I abstain

We don't need the abstention, so the number of options would be the number of candidates plus 2 (all and none). That would be doable ... the objections would not be masked, but I can't think of a simple way to get a no without the candidate knowing about it.

Prim, I've got to read your post more carefully and I'll be right back.

no one has to tot up the PMed names because no one could have enough "no" votes to be rejected, and It would let personal dislike interfere with the process

Yes, you're right on both counts.

I think there should be at least a clear one-third of the voters opposed before someone is turned down.

This sounds reasonable to me, and the more I think about laureanna's poll option the more sense it makes because it gives us the percentage info we need without lot of diddling, and no one has to make a subjective evaluation of the opposition. If 1/3 say 'no,' there must be a good reason.

Regarding the quorum, this is going to be more difficult to get in the future. Farawen had suggested at one point that a quorum should be proportioned from members active over the past two months and I think we're going to have to go to that kind of designation when we consider binding votes of all kinds beyond the ratification process.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 6:12 am
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
As for quorum: I think it should be adapted to the number of members having voted in that particular poll, as the number of active members can vary, for instance in the summer, when many people are absent or around christmas.

So, why not a 2/3 majority of votes?

Laureanna's option seems fine for me, even if it is potential hurtful.

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 6:30 am
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Laureanna's numbered ballot option is workable, but requires mass PMing or emailing and the manual counting of all ballots. What I propose would be done with a simple poll, and I think most of the time the poll results alone would pass all the candidates, with no tallying needed. If "yes" gets 75%, then no one can possibly have more than 25% "no" votes and no one is rejected.

I think we need to think ahead to a board with 500 members, or 1000.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 9:38 am
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Primula_Baggins wrote:
Would this work: Have a poll asking whether everyone in a particular batch was acceptable to serve as an admin, yes or no--and ask people who voted no to PM the objectionable name or names to the admin in charge of the vote?

Then if someone was named as objectionable by more than half the voters, they would not move on.

If "Yes" won the poll, there would be no need to tally the various "nos."

This would keep the poll simple and keep the objections to specific people private--those would only become public in the (surely rare) cases where someone up for the vote was actually objected to by more than half the voters. Otherwise no one but the admin running the vote would ever know.
I think this sounds really good, even with a 1/3 objection-barrier. It's hard to imagine someone getting 1/3 of "no"-votes without some reason.

(And if the person in question nevertheless thinks there's something wrong, they can still ask the Mayor/admins to have the reasons for their rejection discussed, I suppose?)

Maybe the only danger is that only those will vote in the first place who have an objection to make? So, I think for this method we need a quorum, just to make sure that people don't think "I'm fine with everybody, so I needn't vote".
I just can't even imagine what kind of quorum is reasonable to expect for such a vote on a board with , say, 500 members. :scratch

_________________

From our key principles:

We listen to one another, make good-faith efforts to understand one another, and we treat one another respectfully at all times.


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 12:14 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
I am still in favor of posting a list of new volunteers and leaving it up for a period of X days.
If anyone has any objections to that list, then they should publically state their reasons why. Just like a veto.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 1:15 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Prim -

It might be that I am misunderstanding your option, but it seems to me that yours would require the same amount of counting as laureanna's and possibly more.

Yours requires no counting if there are less than 1/3 no's. But the PM's would still have to be sent because we don't know what percentage of no's there are until the voting is done.

Laureannas' would require no counting for "all are OK" or for "one person is not OK". For each objectionable candidate, the poll would tabulate the percentage of objections, and we would only have to count PMs where a voter objected to more than one person.

I'd like to think that our candidates would be acceptable for the most part, but I can also imagine in your system a situation where 60% of the voters vote 'no' and their objection is divided among ten candidates, each one garnering 6% of the opposition. Actually, I'm afraid this scenario is the more likely because small groups of ill-wishers would be aggregated into a singe 'no' vote.

The disadvantage to laureanna's system is that the objections to a particular admin can be seen by the public, and we were hoping for some degree of anonymity, although the candidate will eventually have to be told if they are rejected.

The othe possibility ... because this board seems so attached to voting ... is to set up a voting forum and to put up individual threads for each candidate, but to run up to ten at a time. It would be a straight up/down poll, perhaps requiring 75% approval, and we would ask members not to comment in the thread, and we would delete negative comments that were made until people got the hang of it. A small group of ill-wishers could not prevent such a candidate from entering the pool.

Actually, I don't know how there can be any kind of voting system that conceals objections from a candidate.

Did I vote in favor of this provision? I wish I hadn't.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Nin
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 1:23 pm
Per aspera ad astra
Offline
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 6:53 am
Location: Zu Hause
 
I think in the end I like Holby's proposal, to set up a list of names and to say: if you think one member of this list should not enter the admin pool, PM the mayor or one of the current admins. If there are more than X people speaking up against a potential admin, the candidate will be kindly told.

One person is a tough one - because sometimes there is just one person with whom you don't click (it's happening to me with one of the members... and I know everybody else loves this member...)

_________________

Nichts Schöneres unter der Sonne als unter der Sonne zu sein.
(Ingeborg Bachmann)


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 1:42 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
Jn, either I haven't been clear or I don't understand what I'm proposing here.

There'd be a poll in a thread, just one of the regular anonymous polls, and anyone voting "no" would be asked to PM an admin with the name or names of the person they objected to. Only the "no" votes would involve PMs, and these would be from the voter to the admin. Only "no" votes accompanied by PMs would count. (That is, if there were 30 "no" votes in the poll but only 28 PMs, the poll results would be calculated as if there were 28 "no" votes.)

At the end of the poll, say there was a total of 60 votes in the poll and 41 were "yes." That's more than two-thirds, and everyone in the poll passes.

If there were 39 "yes" votes and (ideally) 21 PMs explaining "no" votes, an admin would have to tally up those negative votes.

Someone would only be turned down if they, individually, were named in PMs by more than one-third of the total number of voters.

If the "no" votes were scattered among the names on the list and no single person had 21 "no" votes, then again the whole list would pass. There would just be an extra step before that could be announced.

The whole point is to discover anyone on the list who has one-third or more opposition from the membership. If the poll is 50% "no," but those "no" votes are spread out and no one has a one-third "no" vote, it's irrelevant; everyone still passes. But if all 50% who voted "no" named the same person in their PMs, then that person would go down.

Again, I don't think it would often happen that there would be less than two-thirds voting "yes." The poll could simply be accepted as passing everyone, as soon as it was over.

The advantage of this system is total privacy on the number of "no" votes any one candidate received. The numbers only need to become known for someone who gets more than one-third opposition and does not pass.

Am I making this at all more clear?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 1:51 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Either Holby's or Prim's ideas would be OK by me, insofar as if we have to have a vote :( the less vote-like it is the better.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:24 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Maybe we should revisit whether a vote is really necessary or desireable.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 2:27 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Well, it was approved. And though I don't like it, I think we should make a stab at trying to codify it. If we can't then that's a different matter...but heck, we only have one page on this so far. :)

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:24 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Voronwe: the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of a member approval mechanism: 18 to 3. I don't think we would get a different net outcome on a re-vote.

Prim: The advantage of this system is total privacy on the number of "no" votes any one candidate received.

Yes, that is exactly the advantage!

So it really comes down to how we want to distribute the work, the privacy, and the anonymity.

Prim system: more work for members and counters (because every 'no' vote is accompanied by a PM), no anonymity for opposition voters, complete privacy for candidates

laureanna system: less work for members and counters (because PM's are only required when multiple candidates are objectionable), anonymity for all voters who object to none or only one of the candidates, no privacy for candidates

I'm going to add this contrast to the first post which, btw, I've just edited for clarification.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 3:51 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
I am in favor of requiring opposition to be public, but not personal, which is what I think Prim is shooting for.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 11 Apr , 2005 4:30 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Public but not personal would be the laureanna option. :)

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 6  [ 103 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: