board77

Well, then Prim's, whatever qualities it has. I think the onus of visibility should be on the person opposing, to make frivilous or capricious objections less likely.

You want the opposition voter to be unable to do this anonymously ... right? Yes, that's the Prim option. But the opposition would not be public in her option - only the counters would see it.

Jn

Still, I think that's better than sniping with total anonymity. It might deter really frivolous and vindictive "no" votes. But it's not public enough, I think, to deter most people who honestly think someone shouldn't serve.

Yes, I'm inclining toward that option, Prim.

Maybe we should consider briefly the feasibility issue. If this is done by PM, and we need a quorum of voters, will the opposition votes fit in one person's inbox?

Jn

I didn't think of that, Jn. Maybe there could be a special ID just for votes, with a completely empty inbox? Mine seems to hold at least 50 messages.

Of course, if the board grows. . . . hmmmm. Email, again with a special inbox so votes don't blend with business? The reason I thought "PM" is convenience and voter privacy (the board name is shown, but not the real name).

I wonder if some kind of customization of inbox size will be possible at the new board?

We could start with the PM solution, and then if the board grows too much, switch over to an email system ... at which point we would need more counters as well.

Admins get to see email addies anyway, and I assume the mayor will too because of having to send out eligibility notices, so I don't think anyone should suffer more than the usual level of concern over sending in votes by email.

Jn

bump above locked voting threads

Cerin the Wise wrote:

If my name were put up for admin., I would want to know about any no votes I received, whether or not they disqualified me from being an admin. I think this sort of feedback is relatively rare in life, and valuable. Would there be a mechanism by which the candidates could inquire about the details of the voting? It wouldn't be necessary to know who had said what, but I think I would want to know the substance of the objections that had been raised about me.

Just wanted to paste this here to make sure everyone saw it, even though I don't really have a response to it.

Cerin brings up a good point. It really does behoove us to transmit the objection in any scenario, at least if we want to actually address any real issues that might be there. Can't fix what you don't know is busted.

I personally wouldn't want to have to voice objections in public. I'm not the sort of person to do that and it would make me extremely uncomfortable. I don't really like counters seeing it but I can live with that I suppose.

Inboxes should hold 100 messages unless some admin has gone and changed it.

Whups, you're right, Eru--I never actually counted. 100 messages ought to be plenty for the foreseeable future.

And I share your objection to having to publicly explain a simple "no" vote. (I know that's not what Cerin was asking for, but some proposed systems involve public objections.) A veto under the old invite system, where your single "no" vote was binding on everyone--that's one thing. But you should be allowed to cast a single vote among dozens without justifying it.

Well - sorry I did not see this earlier - but frankly, my opinion is avoid as much as possible doing any votes by PM. Why? Because they can only be send to and accessed by one person. Much rather (and easier to handle IMO for accessible easily to all current admins) is to use the Admin email. Create a special title under which the email must be sent if there are objections and it can be filed accordingly somewhere within the email system. PM's are just that: personal messages.
Of course you could set up a special ID to which all Admins would have access but, again IMO, this would be superfluous.

Public but not personal - Laureanna's suggestion would be my pick

Quote:

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

I think is a good solution. One third of the voters to turn someone down seems also ok

Quote:

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.

Absolutely!
Right now here on this free board it might quite well be a nightmare trying to make out just who's active over the past to month but I immagine it would be quite easy to customize such a statistic in the future.

Quote:

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

Good point about major holidays Nin but I think we also need to discuss duration of any such poll, not only quorum (or has that been discussed and I've missed it? )

I think, on principle any non-constitution altering binding polls (advisory polls of course do not necessitate any time frames) should run for ten days, two weekends inclusive (as per ratification of the charter so far, ¶1) while as the duration and process of any constitution altering binding polls will yet need to be discussed.


Having said all this and given my preference for a public (I'm all so for transparency!) but non personal voting system, I also have to say that I share Cerin's opinion. If I were in the position of being a 'voted out' Admin volunteer I'd also like to know why. I think in such a case there can only be one way of action so that no-one get's offended and no-one feels 'treaded on': open a thread and ask for people to come forward with the option of giving one's email address in case people rather like to come forward privately (or PM). That way the volunteers need to express his/her concern and willingness to open communication is satisfied without pressure on the no-voters to come forward with information. Might that be a solution? Any such threads could be crossreferenced to the original poll thread for better visibility.
That's about all I can come up with in way of a possible solution.

_______________
Resident witch

I agree with everything Alandriel said, but I have to think a bit if I can nevertheless add something that makes me sound smart.

People, it seems that we are revolving around the same issues, so I have tried to draft a ballot for your review. The Ballot for Review now occupies the first post of the thread.

I found these voting options to be complicated so PLEASE read them carefully to make sure I have described the options correctly.

I also included the questions about how public the opposition votes should be and whether opposition comments can be shared with candidates, along with an opening clause that assigns resonsibility for the qualitative judgment, a clause that says rejected candidates can try again, and a closing clause that make this vote a binding vote.

Have I left anything out? Described anything wrongly?

Jn

This is hard.

This is indeed hard.

I still like the "Prim" idea, but it's very hard to explain it clearly.

The problem is that simpler methods lead to more complications in dealing with the results, IMO. I really think that the usual result of the Prim method will be an admin posting "Everybody passed, hurray" within moments of the poll closing.

Well, I like very much the idea of candidates not seeing negative votes or comments. And I like the idea of being able to vote "All-ee All-ee In Free" if so inclined, instead of voting on individuals. And I want the ballot to be secret for all practical purposes ... there's no option there, except the individual poll, that allows for a completely secret ballot.

I have to confess that the email vote is looking better and better to me. Its advantage is that the members will understand it. More work for the counter, but if "All" is the first opinion, and that really does turn out to be the choice of the majority most of the time, there wouldn't be a lot of tabulation involved. Just a whole lot of email.

Jn

Email voting is indeed looking better and better.

It's very (!!) hard to get one's head wrapped around this. Just immagine how a normal poster will feel like and discussions/contestations re any such online polling/voting here are bound to spring up and will bring up endless controversy.

Keep it simple, keep it safe, even if a bit of extra work counting and filing emails is involved. Perhaps for the duration of something like that the Admins could task-assign priority for 2 Admins to oversee the email process. Should not be too difficult, or even request the help of previous admins temporarily if necessary.

_______________
Resident witch

Oh, this is complicated.... pondering....

My fears are:

1) if the system is complicated, only people who feel they have a vested interest in it will participate. As anyone who follows local tax elections knows, this generally means a disproportionate negative response, since opposition generates more visceral involvement than support.

2) if a person can be rejected without finding out why, it will make finding volunteers harder. I know I would not volunteer in such a system.