|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 265 of 332:
|
Dec 19 19:03 UTC 2001 |
However the tie is resolved, I think it should result in one of
bhelliom and flem being a board member for a regular two year term.
It can't be both.
The board should decide this soon, since terms expire on December
31. If they decide on a runoff, I'd suggest they also decide how
a tie in the runoff is to be handled.
|
richard
|
|
response 266 of 332:
|
Dec 19 19:15 UTC 2001 |
Surely if regular elections run 15 days, then a runoff would have to
run 15 days. There arent 15 days left in the year, meaning there
doesnt seem to be time to hold a runoff. Once it is past year-end,
the seat becomes officially vacant, and the bylaws require a special
election, not a runoff, to fill a vacancy. Sounds like a coin toss,
arm wrestling, pick a number, something arbitrary is the way to go
|
keesan
|
|
response 267 of 332:
|
Dec 19 19:28 UTC 2001 |
Would it be reasonable, in a runoff election, to limit the election only to
people who already voted? And if they did not get around to voting again,
count their previous vote? (If someone voted for both candidates and did not
revote, their previous vote would of course be irrelevant). I think someone
was concerned about people being out of town and unable to vote again.
|
richard
|
|
response 268 of 332:
|
Dec 19 20:39 UTC 2001 |
could limit the re-vote to *only* those who voted for both bhell and flem
on their ballots. if the vote program can be set up to allow only those
people to vote. Any idea how many voted for both-- I know mdw said he did--
it might only have been several people.
|
other
|
|
response 269 of 332:
|
Dec 19 20:49 UTC 2001 |
1st Choice: The two tied candidates, the voteadm and the Chair get
together as soon as possible. The voteadm writes "heads" on one slip of
paper, "tails" on another, and nothing at all on a third slip of paper
(just to randomize a little), and the candidates each draw one slip of
paper at random to determine what the outcome of the coin toss will
indicate. Then, the Chair will flip a coin and the candidate whose
designation, as determined by the slips of paper, matches the result,
wins.
2nd Choice: A truncated, but otherwise normal, election will be held,
lasting one week and ending before 1 January 2002. The voters will each
choose one or the other of the two tied candidates. The Chair will
abstain from voting until and unless it is determined that the election
has resulted in a tie. If the election ends in a tie, the voteadm will
inform the Chair, at which point the Chair will cast the deciding vote.
The results of the election will then be made public, but the vote count
and whether or not the Chair voted will not be made public unless the
Chair decides approves the release of that information. (This is to
protect the privacy of the Chair's vote.)
|
other
|
|
response 270 of 332:
|
Dec 19 20:56 UTC 2001 |
Oh, addition to 1st Choice: The candidates shall draw their slips of
paper before the coin flip, but shall neither read nor reveal what is
written (or not written) on their slips of paper until after the Chair
has flipped the coin, so as not to influence the flip.
|
scott
|
|
response 271 of 332:
|
Dec 19 21:31 UTC 2001 |
Flip the damn coin, already. :)
|
aruba
|
|
response 272 of 332:
|
Dec 19 21:37 UTC 2001 |
My first choice is still a runoff between the two candidates, but I could be
talked into having a coin toss. I actually kind of like Richard's idea
about flipping a coin whenever both show up, but as jep says, it's a little
too radical to be supported in the bylaws.
Do we need to have a special board meeting to hash this out?
I think we have heard from all the board except Marcus and Greg.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 273 of 332:
|
Dec 19 22:24 UTC 2001 |
Sorry, while a coin toss might be expedient, it's just "stupid" for grex,
where there is voting software that can be deployed "in an instant". Simply
set up the run off election, for whatever duration seems reasonable (how about
until the end of the year), and have at it. And none of this crud about "only
people that voted the first time" or "only people that voted for one of the
candidates that tied". The only issue that would be left would be if the run
off itself ended in a tie...
|
jp2
|
|
response 274 of 332:
|
Dec 20 00:20 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 275 of 332:
|
Dec 20 01:30 UTC 2001 |
Re 267: Sindi, I think I'd be against an election where the list of eligible
voters is a secret. And I'd say that, people having voted with the
understanding that their ballot was secret, we certainly can't announce which
voters voted for flem & bhelliom. I really don't think it can be made to
work.
Re 273: I don't think a coin toss is stupid, under the circumstances.
There's been enough discussion of who should be eligible to vote in a runoff
(those eligible as voters at the time of the election? those eligible at the
time of the runoff? those who actually voted in the election? or Sindi's
suggestion, for that matter) to make it clear that it's not obvious how such
a runoff should be conducted. (Personally, I'd actually favor a coin toss,
in the face of these issues.)
You just blow off those issues, and the issue of duration, as if they don't
matter. They do.
|