|
Grex > Coop9 > #7: Members with more than one vote |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 186 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 79 of 186:
| 
Nov 6 18:11 UTC 1996 |
I agree on the influencing issue. And propose we do nothing about it.
Ithe fact remains that there *is* a person on grex with two memberships.
Should we take his/her word for it that one of the memberships is an
organization? Even if we do, should we permit this person to control 1.16
votes on grex, while I only control 1?
If we answer yes, I am thinking about buying some votes. Grex could use the
money, and i can afford it. (personally I find this repugnant, but I want to
make a point about our policy. I think it is a critically important point,
and not one we can trust people about. I will prove that if necessary.)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 80 of 186:
|
Nov 6 21:41 UTC 1996 |
Let me see if I got this right, Steve. Grex supports the idea of one vote
per person no matter how many memberships that person is involved with or
how much that person donates to Grex. We admit someone could abuse the
system but would rather let the policy stand alone and trust our users to
do the right thing. Why?
Firstly, because it's very much in the spirit of how we see the members
taking care of their system. Secondly, it would be difficult at best to
prove who anyone is who wanted to abuse the system. Our present system of
identification is inadequate to prevent voter fraud. We'd need recent
picture ID on every member, and even then you wouldn't really know who is
tele-voting now, would you. So how do we lock it down tight so nobody can
vote twice? I know, only those members who can vote face-to-face, with
ID, can do the deed.
So, how many fake voting accounts you gonna take out in this little
display of temper, Steve?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 81 of 186:
|
Nov 7 06:51 UTC 1996 |
I see no inherent problem in an organization becoming a member - the more
members, the more support. I also don't *personally* have a problem with
an organization voting (it is usual in all the organizations I belong to
that accept "institutional" members).The theoretical objection appears to be
that the organization's vote might be cast by a member (though I also never
see that happening, it could I admit). I'd live with it, for the sake of
good institutional relations, but I'd make sure thatthe policy is that that
institutional vote must be cast in a regular meeting of that organization.
|
srw
|
|
response 82 of 186:
|
Nov 8 05:16 UTC 1996 |
Actually, Rane, I really don't have a problem with an
organization voting, but I am not sure where to draw the line.
Should we require the org to be incorporated? If not, what about
an org. with two people on the board, both of whom are already
members?
I think that Grex should be more friendly to organizations than
it currently is. I don't believe we permit organizational
memberships at all. Hence, if one is desired, it gets taken out
in the persona of a board member. That is the case with at least
one account which is authenticated with the ID of someone who
already votes under another ID.
This caused our treasurer to point out to me privately that we do
NOT have a policy that prevents a person from paying for more
than one voting membership. In fact, we have such a person on our
rolls. Well I certainly believed that it was our policy, and had
said so publicly many times. Now I am hearing that we really
don't have or need this policy.
I think if we officially recognized one of the accounts as being
an organixational membership, and if we did restrict individuals
(and organizations) to no more than one vote, then the current
situation would not require fixing, but our one-person one-vote
principle would be our policy, as I think it should.
Display of temper? Well I was only trying to point out what I
could do. Can you trust the next person not to do that? I
remember when Valerie posted her worries that the votes could be
bought up. I thought she was worrying too much at the time,
because I felt we had adequate protection by requiring separate
IDs for wach vote bought. Without a policy that enforces that, I
am getting worried now myself. Why should I be so trusting?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 83 of 186:
|
Nov 8 17:02 UTC 1996 |
Oh! Now I understand why that discussion went the way it did. I should go
dig it up again, to see if that point was ever discussed. If people were
using different unwritten assumptions, it explains a lot.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 84 of 186:
|
Nov 8 17:22 UTC 1996 |
I think I might be getting what srw is asking for, also. It is my
understanding that it is indeed an unwritten policy already that no matter
how many memberships a person is involved with only one vote per person is
allowed. Maybe this needs to be more than unwritten and better
publicized. What I would object to would be an attempt to back-up such a
policy with additional rules regarding identification, verification,
punishment for those who don't attend to the policy, etc. That would be
useless and set a distrustful tone.
|
dang
|
|
response 85 of 186:
|
Nov 8 23:06 UTC 1996 |
I agree that a not so unwritten policy is probably in order here. How do we
do it? Is a declaration by scott enough? A board vote? A membership vote?
An amendment to the by-laws? I'd say either of the first two.
|
mta
|
|
response 86 of 186:
|
Nov 8 23:54 UTC 1996 |
I'd be more comfortable getting the membership to vote on writing down
what had been an unwritten rule. I wouldn't be too uncomfortable
with a Board vote if we seemed to have concensus here that the users
were happy not to deal with it.
|
davel
|
|
response 87 of 186:
|
Nov 9 12:52 UTC 1996 |
So someone make a first pass at wording something. (I'd say that wording's
going to be a bit tricky on this one, so maybe we should bat that around
before officially making a proposal. When (if) we get to the proposal, I'd
like to see it have its own item, with reference back to the discussion here.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 88 of 186:
|
Nov 9 16:03 UTC 1996 |
In fact, the bylaws require that it be done pretty much that
way. Before an official proposal is made, there has to be an
item for batting the idea around.
|
davel
|
|
response 89 of 186:
|
Nov 9 22:25 UTC 1996 |
Of course. What I was suggesting was a bit more batting around before the
item.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 90 of 186:
|
Nov 9 22:49 UTC 1996 |
Someone should state exactly what they want to accomplish *and* a draft
wording for it. This would be a "member privilege or restriction" rule,
which belongs in the bylaws. The *current* rule is that a person may have
only one membership and one vote because this is the state default. What
more is it desired to allow?
|
aruba
|
|
response 91 of 186:
|
Nov 13 01:19 UTC 1996 |
I hope you all realize that our current ID-collecting methods are completely
inadequate for telling that two accounts are in fact held by separate humans.
Even if this proposal comes to fruition, we are *still* 100% dependent on the
good faith of the membership in following the rule. The only thing it might
accomplish is that a person wishing to buy an election would have to be a bit
sly about it (borrow friends' ids, and such). And are we really going to
require that two accounts have different id information? Then parents and
children, husbands and wives will have to do more that just write us checks
on a joint account. It's not a huge burden, I suppose, but it's an
impediment. And I really don't see what it will accomplish.
|
srw
|
|
response 92 of 186:
|
Nov 15 05:37 UTC 1996 |
I don't think it is necessary for us to attempt to discover when someone is
using a false or friend's ID. I think our current ID collecting methods are
pretty much OK. If I want to buy an account for my wife, I should even be able
to pay for it with the same check, since both our names are on it. If I want
to buy a membership for my kids, I think it is reasonable for Grex to ask for
some evidence that these kids actually exist, that's all.
To do less, or to permit the same person to have two memberships which both
could be voted seems to me at odds with the bylaws.
I am not really all that interested in having a membership vote unless we
really have to, but I am questioning whether the Treasurer is enforcing our
current policy (which should be 1 person=1 vote, as far as I know) adequately.
Please note that I am not questioning Mark's actions specifically, as he has
just been doing things the same as before. The current issue was raised by
him, in fact, because we have an organization and an individual which are
both voting, and in fact both using the same ID. I'd rather see us officially
recognize organizational memberships than tell this member that one can't vote.
The issue seems the same as with children. If the organization really exists
and isn't a hoax, then I'm for allowing it to be a member.
Allowing organizations to be a member may require a bylaw change - I dunno.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 93 of 186:
|
Nov 15 17:40 UTC 1996 |
Minor nit: I'm under the impression that Kami votes only once, and that
convocat doesn't vote. They're both *eligible* to vote, though.
|
robh
|
|
response 94 of 186:
|
Nov 15 18:30 UTC 1996 |
And if it hasn't been driven home yet, Kami doesn't own the
"convocat" account, it's owned by a local non-profit organization.
Kami is the one who's paid the money for their membership, that's
all.
(This does not answer the question of whether a group-owned login id
should be allowed to vote, of course.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 95 of 186:
|
Nov 16 14:38 UTC 1996 |
Re #92: Steve, if you want it to be clear what the treasurer should enforce,
then we ought to have at least a board resolution about it.
|
srw
|
|
response 96 of 186:
|
Nov 17 05:17 UTC 1996 |
Agreed, Mark. The discussion in this item should lead to board action.
I know that kami doesn't vote convocat as if it were her personal account.
Mark pointed out that kami and convocat were both voting accounts with the
same person's ID.
I think two voting accounts should not be taken out as the same person.
Convocat is (de facto) an organization, not a person. But for some reason
I don't understand, we don't recognize organizational memberships. If we did,
we wouldn't have a problem. Since we don't, convocat is kami, by our rules.
As things stand now, I think we do have a problem. I'd like to resolve it so
that kami and convocat can both continue to be members and have voting rights.
I don't think our current rules permit that, though, and I think our
treasurer has not been enforcing them
|
chelsea
|
|
response 97 of 186:
|
Nov 17 15:37 UTC 1996 |
Steve, maybe you've mentioned already what rules you would like to see
enacted to resolve this problem but I don't recall your offering such
specifics. So far I know you'd like Board action, a one vote per member
rule "enforced", recognition of a membership class with voting right, and
the treasurer to do the enforcing.
And this is going to be discussed (and possibly voted on at Wednesday's
Board meeting).
Would you mind slowing down a bit and presenting a full proposal here
including answers to a few questions? Like, what kind of identification
are you going to require to make a policy work? How are you going to
enforce it? When we start expanding the definition of membership wouldn't
it be a good idea to change the Bylaws? Who will do the voting for a
membership account and how will we enforce that? How are we going to
determine exactly who is doing *any* voting once we decide going by an
honor system isn't good enough? What will the punishment be for someone
who violates voting rules?
This should all be discussed, here, online, before anything gets decided
by the Board.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 98 of 186:
|
Nov 17 18:37 UTC 1996 |
All membership rights and responsibilities need to be in the bylaws. (The
dues do not>. I'd support a non-voting, Institutional, membership, for
oranizations that want to support Grex and be recognized for their
support. (I say "non-voting" as that's the consensus I hear, though I
have no trouble with Institutional memberes voting.) I'd even be glad to
write the amendment - but is there something else that is needed here? I
see no need to spell out that an individual can have only one membership
and one vote - any money an individual sends beyond their basic dues is a
donation (thank you very much!), but can't buy another membership for
them.
|
aruba
|
|
response 99 of 186:
|
Nov 17 19:41 UTC 1996 |
Absolutely, it needs to be spelled out, what our policy is with regard to
requiring IDs from our members. It is one thing to have a rule that no one
may vote more than once, and quite another to enforce it by
requiring verification that the rule is being adhered to. I repeat, our
current system is not up to that task. It is designed to have a way to track
down people who do something bad, not to be able to prove that a person is
who he says he is, or to prove that two logins actually belong to different
people. I'm afraid that if we push this thing far enough, the result may be
that we find that to have a secure voting system, we can't vote on-line at
all.
And I think that would be bad, if we got so worked up over the possibility
that someone might vote twice that we made it harder for *everyone* to be a
member and vote.
I think we shouldn't get into the business of trying to verify that people
are who they say they are, but instead simply have a rule that no one may own
two memberships. Of course, someone can break that rule if they try. But
face up to it, folks, *Grex is dependent on the good will of its members*.
And it always will be, I hope. If we don't treat the membership with trust
and respect, why should they support us?
For God's sake, this is not a commercial enterprise. It's not like there's
a lot at stake; like some fortune hunter might decide to take over Grex
because it would be worth a lot of money to him. This is a non-profit club;
why would anyone want to do an underhanded takeover of it?
That still leaves the problem of the convocat membership. I'm not sure what
to do about it; but having a non-voting organizational-membership class seems
like a reasonable solution to me.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 100 of 186:
|
Nov 17 20:10 UTC 1996 |
(applause, applause)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 101 of 186:
|
Nov 18 06:40 UTC 1996 |
I agree with Mark.
|
srw
|
|
response 102 of 186:
|
Nov 18 07:46 UTC 1996 |
I agree with Mark, too. What made anyone think otherwise? (Though I don't like
the use of the word "club", as I think grex is far more than that.)
Maybe I haven't been very clear here. I have not proposed that we change the
rules of getting ID. Mary, Mark, and possibly Valerie seem to have thought
so. I apologize if I wasn't clear.
I would ask for board action to get the treasurer to change the current
enforcement of voting rules to one person = 1 vote. This would have
ramifications only w.r.t. kami/convocat. I ask for this only because Mark said
it would take board action to get him to change.
I would proposed that the treasurer enforce that an individual cannot have
two memberships. Currently, he is permitting two memberships to be allocated
to the same person (same ID). He already recognizes that this is a problem.
Like Rane, I have no problem with our offering a voting class of
organizational membership. Mary correctly notes that we need to change the
bylaws to offer any new class of membership. If we don't revise the bylaws,
or until we do, this means that the convocat ID should be made non-voting
unless Kami can find another member of that organiization to provide ID. That
is about all I am proposing.
We have been talking about this for a while now, and I think it would make
a good board agenda item.
|
davel
|
|
response 103 of 186:
|
Nov 18 11:49 UTC 1996 |
So if, say, I write a check for $12 (or $120) and tell Mark that half is for
a membership for me & half for Grace, it couldn't be accepted? It's the same
ID, after all ... but it *does* have both our names on it.
|