board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTE OVER: Election of the Mayor

Post Reply   Page 7 of 9  [ 164 posts ]
Jump to page « 15 6 7 8 9 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 12:07 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Jn, can't we have members ratify whatever we decide here, and then place the text where it needs to go in the Charter?

Currently working on revising the ballot.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 12:43 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Okay, I have significantly revised the ballot, including changing the order as Prim requested, since that change actually made sense to me once I changed what had been Question 1 to include two different options. It is now a three part ballot. The first part deals with the committee. The second part deals with time lines. And the third part deals with the voting process (including the two items that Jn said needed to be included in Paragraph 1).

Prim, its probably too early to say go ahead and vote, but if you want to PM a ballot to me, I'll include it if the ballot doesn't change significantly. But if you are trying to get out of here, don't worry about it. We'll manage without you somehow. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 12:58 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Jn, can't we have members ratify whatever we decide here, and then place the text where it needs to go in the Charter?

Yes - it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. I just think it needs to be clear to the members when it goes for ratification that an age requirement and a requirement for seconded nominations are amendments to Article 4, ¶1 rather than being part of ¶4 which we are writing here.

There are other things that have to be added to this Article, which I'll address once we get this ballot ready to go. For the sake of clarity, we should hold up ratification of this particular paragraph until all the changes associated with the Article are ready to go.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 1:04 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Yes - it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. I just think it needs to be clear to the members when it goes for ratification that an age requirement and a requirement for seconded nominations are amendments to Article 4, ¶1 rather than being part of ¶4 which we are writing here.
Yes, I agree, but I think we can do that. :)
Quote:
There are other things that have to be added to this Article, which I'll address once we get this ballot ready to go. For the sake of clarity, we should hold up ratification of this particular paragraph until all the changes associated with the Article are ready to go.
Just to be sure I understand clearly, you are not speaking of things that need to be added to the ballot, correct? :help:


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 1:29 am
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Correct. I want to get this ballot into a vote before adding complication that don't have to do with the election of the Mayor. :)

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 1:35 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Okay. :) I'll let the current draft of the ballot marinate for a bit, and if there are no objections or further suggestions, I'll start the vote.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 1:14 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Thanks for coming up with a good ballot, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to follow more closely! :)

I have two questions about the ballot, though.
I realise I'd probably understand this if I had read more carefully, but maybe someone could humour a poor, overworked Ranger and explain this briefly? *eyelid-batting smiley* ;)


The committee sees to it that the nomination process runs according to the rules, that the time-schedule is kept, and counts the votes if we decide on ballot by PM - is that right?
Quote:
The committee will be formed 20 days after the current Mayor has made the "heads-up" announcement (10 days before the nominations officially begin). If at that time a member is considering accepting a nomination for the office, the member is not eligible to be on the committee. If a person accepts a position on the committee, they may not be nominated for the office.
So, is it expected that members know they will be nominated much in advance of the actual nominations?

What if someone is surprised by a nomination, but have already accepted being on the committe?

Shouldn't they be just allowed to withdraw from the committee, rather than having to decline the nomination?

Lastly, I think this should read:
Quote:
Nominations of candidates must be seconded by a different member than the member that nominated the candidate, for the candidate to be eligible to run for the office.
(Well, I don't know if the comma makes sense to an English reader there, but I had to read that three times before I realised that it made sense if "then" were "than" and if there's a caesura before "for" - still not entirely sure if that's correct, though, that's why I'm asking. :) )

_________________

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
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 2:42 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I have rewritten the question about seconding and actually divided it into two separate questions, one establishing that nominations must be seconded, and the other establishing that members can only nominate or second one member. They are separate thoughts and one could support one without supporting the other, so they should be separate questions.

As for the issue of committee members being nominated, I think this needs more thought. Here is my question to the convention committee:

Other than helping to count the votes, what does this election committee need to do that the current Mayor can't just as easily do herself? I am considering changing the ballot to include an option that the committee not be formed until the nominations are in place, unless someone convinces me that this is not workable.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 3:29 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Hobby: What if someone is surprised by a nomination, but have already accepted being on the committe?

I think that for an office lasting one year, where some amount of record keeping must be done on the home computer, and the person really does need an eye for detail and timely action, I would not like nominations that were a surprise to the person being nominated.

For one thing, they should have read the Mayor's Handbook (which will be written in the next day or so) and concluded that they don't mind the tedium of doing this during their posting time and can put up with it for a whole year.

Voronwe: I am considering changing the ballot to include an option that the committee not be formed until the nominations are in place, unless someone convinces me that this is not workable.

Well, I can't think of a compelling reason not to let the Mayor conduct the nomination process alone - basically this says that the committee only convenes to count the votes. I think that conducting the thread will be a bit of a job ... but, it's like thread leadership here, I guess. Since only the threadstarter (Mayor, presumably) will be able to edit the nominations, seconds, and acceptances into the first post, there's not a whole a lot of point to having three people watch the thread.

I want to think about the distribution of work some more, but I can't think of a reason why this shouldn't be an option in this vote.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 3:42 pm
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
members can only nominate or second one member.
Does that mean that each member has one second and one nomination to use, or that they can nominate OR second, but not both?
Quote:
Other than helping to count the votes, what does this election committee need to do that the current Mayor can't just as easily do herself? I am considering changing the ballot to include an option that the committee not be formed until the nominations are in place, unless someone convinces me that this is not workable.
That's a good idea. :) The committee would rather be sitting around twiddling their thumbs during the nomination process. If they're only needed to count votes, I think it makes perfect sense to not convene until after the nominations are done.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 3:46 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Mossy: they can nominate OR second

Usually, for something like this, a single member would only be permitted to support a single candidate. So once you've nominated or seconded a particular candidate, you can't do either for a different candidate.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 3:56 pm
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
All right. Thanks for clarifying. :)

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 7:02 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Okay, I have significantly altered the ballot - again. The biggest change is with Question 4. I hope that I haven't come up with something that is too confusing. Question 4 actually is two questions in one. It resolves first of all whether the committee should be created 20 days after the head's up announcement or not until the nominations are over. And if the choice is for the former (20 days after head's up announcement), whether committee members should be absolutely banned from being nominated, or whether they should be replaced on the committee if they are nominated. Its a bit tricky but I hope everyone understands. Otherwise, I will have to break it up into two separate questions, which I was finding dicey when I was thinking out it.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 7:08 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Quote:
I am considering changing the ballot to include an option that the committee not be formed until the nominations are in place, unless someone convinces me that this is not workable.
I think that's a good idea, it would solve the problem about a late nomination! :)
Jnyusa wrote:
Hobby: What if someone is surprised by a nomination, but have already accepted being on the committe?

I think that for an office lasting one year, where some amount of record keeping must be done on the home computer, and the person really does need an eye for detail and timely action, I would not like nominations that were a surprise to the person being nominated.

For one thing, they should have read the Mayor's Handbook (which will be written in the next day or so) and concluded that they don't mind the tedium of doing this during their posting time and can put up with it for a whole year.
I'm sorry, I don't understand that.
Surely, no poster could know whether someone was going to nominate them? I can't see anyone reading the handbook and getting all prepared, when they can't be sure they will be nominated.
The way it's described it sounds as if someone wants to be mayor, and that they prepare, and then find themselves someone to nominate them (because you wouldn't risk leaving it to chance after having prepared, I think). (To me that's a bit fishy, though.)

Or is the idea that anyone who wants to nominate someone should think of that months in advance and ask the person in good time?

Because the way I would have seen myself go about this, would be that at first I'd just wait and see who gets nominated, and if there's a candidate I like, fine - only, if I noticed that I don't like any of the candidates, I'd start thinking about asking someone who I'd think good for the office.
But I guess that's not the idea? (Although, if it's not, what is the nomination period for?)

Edit: I like the new ballot. :)

_________________

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
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 7:27 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
The way it's described it sounds as if someone wants to be mayor, and that they prepare, and then find themselves someone to nominate them (because you wouldn't risk leaving it to chance after having prepared, I think). (To me that's a bit fishy, though.)

Every voting process I've been a part of has worked like this. :D If the initiative is coming from the other end - if you have someone you'd like to nominate - you always ask them first whether they are willing. You don't just nominate people out of the clear blue sky for a consequential office.

I think that in 99.9% of the cases people would know who the nominees are going to be before the nomination opens, and it is the other .1% that I would consider 'fishy.'

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 8:23 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Of course you ask them first before nominating them.
I just don't like the idea of someone planning to be mayor and getting someone to nominate them - that's the fishy part for me.
I know that's how politics works, but it's still not very nice.

I think you could just as well ask someone if they would like to be nominated once nomination starts, and if they agree, fine.
I can't see people giving a lot of thought to this before it's time, too.
So, late nominations shouldn't be such an exception, I think.

_________________

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
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 8:31 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I just don't like the idea of someone planning to be mayor and getting someone to nominate them - that's the fishy part for me.
I know that's how politics works, but it's still not very nice.


To me it's the same thing as volunteering to be a Ranger. We want people who are really interested in the job, not people who were pressed or flattered into service and then back out halfway through. How else will we know people are interested unless they tell their friends that they would like to be nominated?

I don't think willingness to take on this kind of position is something the person should be shy about or ashamed of.

Jn

_________________

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


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 8:50 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Since there has been no more comments on the ballot, I am going to declare this vote OPEN.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 8:58 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
True, good point.

Although in that case, nominations don't seem necessary, just like with Rangers - people could just as well nominate themselves, I think.

But I'm just quibbling, I like the poll, as far as I'm concerned we could vote. :)

_________________

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
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Wed 29 Jun , 2005 9:41 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
Question 1. Three-person committee headed by current Mayor.

A. I agree with the statement.


Question 2. Selection of the committee.

A. I agree with the statement.

Question 3. Ranger on the committee?

1. A
2. B
3. C

Question 4. Formation of committee and avoiding nominations of committee members.


1. B
2. C
3. A


PART II. Election Timelines.

Question 5. Election process

1. B
2. A
3. C

Question 6. Inaugeration date.

A. I agree with the statement.


PART III. VOTING PROCESS

Question 7. What kind of vote?

1. B
2. D
3. C
4. A

Question 8. How to deal with ties.


1. A
2. B
3. C

Question 9. Rangers running.

A. I agree with the statement.


Question 10. Seconding nominations.

A. I agree with the statement.


Question 11. Limitation on nominating and seconding.


A. I agree with the statement.


Question 12. Age limitation.

A. I agree with the statement.

_________________

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
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 7 of 9  [ 164 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page « 15 6 7 8 9 »
Jump to: