|
Grex > Oldcoop > #305: Nominations for Special Election to Fill Board Vacancies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 118 responses total. |
charcat
|
|
response 50 of 118:
| 
Jan 24 00:29 UTC 2006 |
I just tried voting and could not seem to vote for John,,?
|
janc
|
|
response 51 of 118:
|
Feb 4 15:55 UTC 2006 |
I have updated my statement. I also put a date on it, so that people
will know it is old the next time I run. This happens every time. Sure
has been a long time since I last ran.
Hmmm...didn't get John's reminder email.
Apparantly neither did John, since he still seems statementless. Well,
I'll say that he has been active with Grex since it began, longer than I
have. He's one of the original founders. He is currently the most
active staff member, the one person most likely to reboot Grex when it
needs rebooting. He'll respect Grex's traditions, and yet be open to
new ideas. Vote for John!
|
spooked
|
|
response 52 of 118:
|
Feb 7 10:06 UTC 2006 |
Counting has finished in the Grex board election to fill the two
positions made available by two resigning board members. The tally
of votes was:
Members (17 voted of 60 eligible): 15 janc, 15 remmers
Non-Members (24 voted): 19 janc, 13 remmers
Of note, only the member votes count in this election, of course.
Since there were two positions available and only two candidates
ran for the election, the uncontested result is that both janc and
remmers are elected to the Grex BoD. Congrats nevertheless to Jan
and John! They will both do a fine job.
Thanks to all people who cast their vote!
|
janc
|
|
response 53 of 118:
|
Feb 7 16:19 UTC 2006 |
Thanks.
|
tod
|
|
response 54 of 118:
|
Feb 7 17:18 UTC 2006 |
You're welcome!
|
naftee
|
|
response 55 of 118:
|
Feb 7 21:01 UTC 2006 |
thanks tod !
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 118:
|
Feb 8 01:21 UTC 2006 |
THanks soup!
|
keesan
|
|
response 57 of 118:
|
Feb 8 01:57 UTC 2006 |
Who did the other two voting members vote for? Is there a place on the ballot
to write in names, that I did not notice?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 58 of 118:
|
Feb 8 02:04 UTC 2006 |
It is possible to vote for no candidates. You may vote for *at most* as many
candidates as there are open seats; it is possible to vote for fewer.
|
keesan
|
|
response 59 of 118:
|
Feb 8 02:20 UTC 2006 |
So either two people voted for nobody, or four people each voted for only one
person, or .... Odd.
|
spooked
|
|
response 60 of 118:
|
Feb 8 08:40 UTC 2006 |
Yep, many people vote for n positions - where n is the number of available
positions, in this case 2.
|
charcat
|
|
response 61 of 118:
|
Feb 9 00:42 UTC 2006 |
I may have been one of the people voting for only one, for some reason
in telenet I could only vote for one, using putty, I could only vote for
the other (and probably erased my vote for the first one) don't know
why, something about how my computer is set up I guess,,,,,
|
richard
|
|
response 62 of 118:
|
Feb 9 22:09 UTC 2006 |
Only 28% of eligible voters voted, which could lend credence to the argument
that quorum requirements ought to be reinstated. How few a number of votes
is too few? Would it be okay if only one or five people voted and a board
member was elected? I wonder if Grex's 501(3)(c) could be affected it if
does not have reasonable minimum quorum requirements? Should Grex declare
an election void if too few voters vote and schedule another election?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 63 of 118:
|
Feb 10 02:53 UTC 2006 |
I'm just taking a wild guess here but my suspicion is that only 28% of
voters voted because the election results were a foregone conclusion.
|
spooked
|
|
response 64 of 118:
|
Feb 10 09:08 UTC 2006 |
From memory - I think you can only vote for 1 person at a time.
But, I would have to look at the software to confirm this (remmers would
know this for sure).
|
richard
|
|
response 65 of 118:
|
Feb 10 15:38 UTC 2006 |
re #62 if there are only two people running for two open seats, can the board
not declare that the election is unnecessary and vote to simply name them to
the board?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 66 of 118:
|
Feb 10 16:39 UTC 2006 |
No. Because if (hypothetical if) nobody votes for one of the two
candidates, then technically he can not take the position. No?
|
keesan
|
|
response 67 of 118:
|
Feb 10 16:52 UTC 2006 |
I agree that a certain percentage of voters ought to vote in order to make
an election valid - maybe 50%?
|
aruba
|
|
response 68 of 118:
|
Feb 10 16:57 UTC 2006 |
The bylaws originally had such a quorum requirement, but it was removed by
a member vote.
|
richard
|
|
response 69 of 118:
|
Feb 10 17:09 UTC 2006 |
re #66 yeah but one can assume that Jan and Remmers can and would have elected
themselves, simply by casting their own ballots. No other votes were thus
necessary.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 70 of 118:
|
Feb 10 17:22 UTC 2006 |
Suppose the quorum requirement were in place, and so this most recent
election were declared invalid, so the candidates were not elected. I
suppose that the result would be a new election, and an aggressive
campaign to get more people to vote even though the positions are not
contested and so the vote doesn't particularly matter. Would that be a
good thing? Why?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 71 of 118:
|
Feb 10 17:31 UTC 2006 |
Re 69: True, thus demonstrating the hypothetical nature. An election has
to be held so that at least one person votes for either of the two.
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 118:
|
Feb 10 17:35 UTC 2006 |
re #70 sure it would be a good thing because it would have allowed more time
to encourage others to run. Grex should not want to have an election where
there are not more candidates than seats to be filled. Grex should want
voters to have a choice, which they did not have here.
|
richard
|
|
response 73 of 118:
|
Feb 10 17:39 UTC 2006 |
Or maybe just an amendment that states that if the nominating period closes
and there are not more nominees than there are open seats, that the nominating
process shall be automatically extended. That henceforth grex will not hold
uncontested elections.
|
keesan
|
|
response 74 of 118:
|
Feb 10 17:49 UTC 2006 |
How about a way for people to vote AGAINST some candidate, and they can't win
if they have more votes against than for them? Then total jerks could not
win an election where there were no more candidates than openings.
|