|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 240 of 332:
| 
Dec 17 23:04 UTC 2001 |
I think there should be a run-off, ASAP, and it should be between the two tied
candidates ONLY. The membership is evenly split between them right now, but
that is probably because of 'vote diffusion'. Eliminating the failed
candiidates will eliminate the diffusion.
|
carson
|
|
response 241 of 332:
|
Dec 17 23:56 UTC 2001 |
It also will force the members who were able to vote for both choices
to make a decision between them.
|
aruba
|
|
response 242 of 332:
|
Dec 18 00:38 UTC 2001 |
Richard, you just live for this stuff, don't you?
|
gull
|
|
response 243 of 332:
|
Dec 18 01:18 UTC 2001 |
I also think that the board should consider amending the bylaws to
indicate what happens in a tie, to shut up people like richard in the
future. ;)
|
davel
|
|
response 244 of 332:
|
Dec 18 02:10 UTC 2001 |
(1) The board doesn't amend the bylaws.
(2) Amending the bylaws probably wouldn't shut up some people; they would
just complain about the specified method, argue, or (if members) enter
motions for new, different amendments to the bylaws.
None of the above should be taken to mean that I wouldn't support a reasonable
amendment to the bylaws.
|
i
|
|
response 245 of 332:
|
Dec 18 04:08 UTC 2001 |
If it's a two-year term in question and the members expressed no preference
between the two candidates, just have each of them serve one of the two
years.
|
spooked
|
|
response 246 of 332:
|
Dec 18 05:04 UTC 2001 |
Excellent suggestion, Walter! Just flip a coin to decide which year, if
they are undecided between who wants to serve which year.
|
richard
|
|
response 247 of 332:
|
Dec 18 14:26 UTC 2001 |
that would also require an amendment of the bylaws
board terms are two years.
|
mary
|
|
response 248 of 332:
|
Dec 18 15:31 UTC 2001 |
A bylaws ammendement would be fine. There are a whole lot of things
not spelled out in the bylaws. That was intentional, actually. The
membership has always been encouraged to tweek them as needed.
But right now we need to get one of these two on the board. I'd like
to hear their opinions on whether they'd like a coin toss or a vote of
the membership. But I really see no reason to make this any more
complex than either of those two choices.
|
mary
|
|
response 249 of 332:
|
Dec 18 15:32 UTC 2001 |
Er, make that "amendment".
|
richard
|
|
response 250 of 332:
|
Dec 18 16:13 UTC 2001 |
how is just letting the board vote which one they want more complex?
|
eeyore
|
|
response 251 of 332:
|
Dec 18 18:51 UTC 2001 |
Now thatr I'm awake to respond....:)
I personally prefer the voting idea. I don't think I could give you a solid
reason for it, aside from the fact that it seems a hell of alot more
professional than a coin toss. My ideal would be to have a vote off, that
only lasts 7-10 days, that way it's all covered by the end of the year.
|
jep
|
|
response 252 of 332:
|
Dec 18 21:59 UTC 2001 |
In response #189, Richard asked about what happens if there is a tie.
I think he deserves some credit for his prescience.
Larry Kestenbaum told the Arbornet board some years ago, while he and I
were both on it, that tie elections are often decided by a coin toss.
It surprised me, but I recall in some election in the area this method
was actually used.
The reason for it is that it's expensive in "real life" to host a
second election, and a big imposition on the voters to make them go
back to the polls again. They might not vote a second time, in which
case a smaller number of voters would make the final decision for the
election. Or possibly more will vote in the second election. What if
more people vote for both runoff candidates than voted for the lowest
totalled winner from the original election? Do both runoff candidates
get seats and one of the original winners is considered a loser?
There's validity for those arguments for Grex, too. In addition, for
Grex, what happens to a voter who was eligible the first time, but due
to a lapsed membership, is no longer eligible now. What about people
who weren't voters then but are now? Isn't it possible there could
really *be* an attempt to undermine the election?
Couldn't the runoff be modified to include all of those who didn't win
election the first time? Why wouldn't that be as valid as just having
the runoff for the two tied candidates?
I'm not trying to hyperbolize the situation or complicate matters for
Grex. I apologize if I'm making things more difficult for anyone. But
I think the coin toss method is probably the simplest and best solution
under the circumstances.
|
richard
|
|
response 253 of 332:
|
Dec 19 01:45 UTC 2001 |
I dont think a coin toss should be necessary nor an election. The board
prospers from diversity and from having many different users be given
the chance to serve. If there is a tie, and one of the participants is
a current or past board member, and the other has never served, that ought
to be the criteria. The board should ask Flem, since he has just served
two years on the board, to withdraw. Let Bhell, who has never served and
got the same number of votes, have her chance on the board. Flem can run
again in a year. That is fair.
|
gull
|
|
response 254 of 332:
|
Dec 19 03:57 UTC 2001 |
Do we really want to assume new blood is always the best? (No offense
to anyone involved in this case, I'm just speaking in general.)
|
jep
|
|
response 255 of 332:
|
Dec 19 04:21 UTC 2001 |
The time for asking flem (or any other candidate) not to run was before
the election, not now. He should not feel any obligation to step aside
under the circumstances.
What if both of the tied candidates were to step aside in favor of the
other? I don't think the best interests of Grex or it's users would be
served.
|
other
|
|
response 256 of 332:
|
Dec 19 05:11 UTC 2001 |
I propose that we flip richard to see who wins. If he lands on his head,
we win.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 257 of 332:
|
Dec 19 09:12 UTC 2001 |
I propose that we flip him with a slice of buttered toast tied to his back,
and power the Pumpkin with the perpetual motion machine that results.
A perfect process would be nice, but it's best just to have a process.
Even if the rules are a little inconvenient or unfair, it's better to have
rules -- that was you know where you stand. So whatever process we decide
on, I'd like to see it written into the bylaws, or at least made into
official policy. That said, a runoff vote would be nicer than a coin
toss. There's no added cost, and not much added hassle, and it makes the
results feel that much more official and dignified.
|
richard
|
|
response 258 of 332:
|
Dec 19 14:12 UTC 2001 |
#256..other, what is your problem? do you always react with sarcasm
and meanness towards people who make honest suggestions? that isnt
good protocol for a board member.
|
janc
|
|
response 259 of 332:
|
Dec 19 14:50 UTC 2001 |
I think I voted for both Sylvia and Greg. I'm much in favor of getting new
blood on the board, but I'm also much in favor of keeping good old blood.
Personally, I'd place Greg in the top ten list of all-time best Grex board
members, mostly because he's capable of being amazingly sensible at board
meetings. He also gets points for being willing to do the treasurer job when
nobody else was. I don't think he should step down just to give someone else
a turn. That's a silly way to pick board members. We don't need to select
for the least deferential candidate.
I'd prefer a run off. I'd accept a coin flip. I really disapprove of
pressuring either one to withdraw in the other's favor. They are both
excellent candidates. Neither should consider backing out.
|
davel
|
|
response 260 of 332:
|
Dec 19 14:55 UTC 2001 |
Re 256 & the first part of 257:
<sigh> I've been as guilty as anyone of getting upset with Richard & baiting
him, but it really doesn't help when the discussion goes this way.
Moreover, in this case it really doesn't seem justified at all. I disagree
with most of what he's said, pretty strongly, but Richard hasn't been the
only one (or even the main one, I think) keeping the discussion going this
time; and his suggestions, while bad IMNAAHO, have generally seemed to me
to be worth as much consideration as what most people have said.
I entirely agree with what gull & jep said regarding Richard's #253.
Nonetheless, it sounded like a serious attempt to come up with an answer to
a real problem, stated reasonably clearly, concisely, & moderately.
|
davel
|
|
response 261 of 332:
|
Dec 19 14:56 UTC 2001 |
(Jan slipped in.)
|
richard
|
|
response 262 of 332:
|
Dec 19 18:03 UTC 2001 |
if it is to be a coin flip, why not just say they are both board members
and if both show up and the other six members are present at any meeting,
THEN they have a flip a coin as to who can be official for that meeting.
since all the board members dont show up for every meeting, there ought
to be plenty of times where both can vote.
|
jep
|
|
response 263 of 332:
|
Dec 19 18:22 UTC 2001 |
The reason not to accept both on the Board is that the by-laws do not
specify 8 board members; they specify 7 board members. It may be
worthwhile to add another Board member, but that's a separate
decision. It shouldn't be just put into place on an ad hoc basis in
order to avoid the need to make a decision on how this election is
decided.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 264 of 332:
|
Dec 19 18:37 UTC 2001 |
Actually, there is an odd number for a reason....this way there cannot be a
tie on a major issue, with all members voting.
|