66 new of 123 responses total.
Well, our voting membership is so small that votes aren't *really* anonymous. And fwiw, I know all of the candidates and don't really need statements from them. I might end up pulling a name out of a hat. So, candidates, if I don't vote for you, it isn't a statement about how fit I believe anyone is to be on the BOD.
Most members might be able to use information about what background and skills caondidates can bring to the board. "Statements" are often pap. Facts can be informative.
resp:59 Dude, we're talking about a community of, like, 12 people here, all of whom know each other very well. Do you *really* think a simple statement wouldn't suffice for this election?
I know of the community here what they divulge, but seldom do they divulge their training and skills, and even occupations, related to the corporate matters with which the board is concerned.
resp:61 I really think you're reaching here. You've interacted with these people for many, many years, Rane. If you can't decide which of the three individuals running are qualified for the board based on that, and maybe a simple statement, then I just don't know what to say.
Re resp:56 - Thanks for the correction re 'jadecat', Richard. I've updated the ballot accordingly. Yeah, no statements from the candidates so far. I reminded them all via email how to do it, but no takers so far. If any of them creates a statement before the polls close, the vote program will automatically start displaying it.
You know, since gelinas and ts are running for re-election and want to serve, I say retract the previous board amendment and keep the board at seven members as long as there are seven willing to serve. This way TS and Gelinas can keep their seats and Jadecat can have one and that makes seven. Grex is in no position to be turning away people who want to serve.
Just postpone completing the voting and have another bylaw amendment that simply says that the board can be *either* five or seven members depending on how many people are available/willing to run in a given cycle.
I don't think anyone is being "turned away." Changing it now seems, frankly, impractical.
Re #62: I don't know the occupations, education, and long-term volunteer capacities on Grex of most everyone I "know" here. Some things related to these get mentioned by some - infrequently - and I admit I don't try to memorize the information unless I have some direct personal knowledge of the persons.
So let me get this straight: after the many, many years you've spent on Grex, what you're telling me is that you don't feel you have sufficient information about the three candidates to make an informed decision as to which would be best to fill the one vacant board position? Frankly, I find that incredible.
he's making a valid point regarding lack of information but it's kind of weird because :) board may propose but staff disposes <g> i mean.. it's not like former board members didn't try to get things done! It's just different from being on the board of Intel in the sense that Grex requires more of weirdo technical skills and point of presence right now.. it'll be important later on though.. once we have something to present to ppl. so what country club do ppl belong to :p
(I admit, I've learned more about Rane here than I did on Confer, way back when.)
re #68 this isn't about now knowing any of the three, its about which of them has any good ideas about what they'd like to accomplish on the board.
The bylaw amendment changing the size of the board from seven members to five stipulated nothing about when such change takes effect. Therefore I think the board would be within its legal right to vote that the bylaw change shall take effect with next year's election cycle and not this one. This would allow the board to stay at seven for another year and all three candidates can have their board seats. If Grex is around a year from now then go forth based on five seats.
When a by-law doesn't say when it takes effect, it takes effect immediately upon passing. The Board discussed the timing several times and the purpose of running the by-law amendment voting when we did was to have it completed prior to this year's Board elections so we'd know how many seats were open. Thus it was explicitly planned to go into effect this year. No mention was made of having 7 board members at this election, in other words.
Correct: bylaw ordinarily goes into effect when adopted, but a change in the size of the board can't occur instantaneously, unless provision is made for that (like, saying who will be tossed off to go from 7 to 5). I didn't think of this at the time (probably because it was pretty moot), but it should have included an effective date, say "for the election of 2010". However it would certainly go into effect at the election following enaction, which is now.
Just curious: what happens to votes cast before the change from mooncat to jadecat? I don't know that there were any, or any affected by such a change, but I'm still curious.
re #75 good question, I mean it wouldn't be good if Jadecat loses because technically Mooncat's votes (before the ballot change) can't be put under her totals. Not that one would assume Mooncat would have voted for Jadecat anyway. I mean who knows if they even get along :)
The mooncat/jadecat change won't affect the result. Any votes for either 'mooncat' or 'jadecat' will be counted towards Anne's total. And the way the votes are stored, there wouldn't be any double-counting.
frpom 48 (2) A candidate can optionally have a "campaign statement" that is shown on the ballot. Just create a plain text file named "statement" (file name must be in lower case) in your home directory and the vote program will display it. my statememt is now posted.
tnx remmzie ...
what if a candidate inadverdently named a very personal file as "statement" ?
If it's not world readable, I doubt it will show up.
Right, for the vote program to see a statement, the file has to be world readable and stored in a directory that is world searchable.
my satemnt is avalaible ... and i fixed all the tpyos.
oh, here;s how: grex% more ~remmers/ts-statement from putty anyway.
Your statement is also appearing on the Board Election web page, so that's good.
Okay, the polls are closed now. I've requested an up-to-date member list from the treasurer, and as soon as I receive it, I'll tally and post the results. (Subject to possible slight delay, as I'll be traveling tomorrow and unable to get online at times.)
Um, TS, are you not receiving your mail? I've asked you a couple of times for a member list so that I can report the results of the Board election, but no response. But I see you posting in BBS, so I'll ask again here.
re #87 perhaps ts thinks he's going to lose the election, so he's laying low in order to prevent the results from being certified. Is TS the only one who can provide a member list?
he wouldn't have stood for elections if he was worried about defeat
The Treasurer is the only one can certify the member list, because the Treasurer is the one who receives the dues payments.
resp:88 You take Grex way too seriously. TS has provided the list to the board.
Okay, I received the list of eligible voting members from TS and can now
report the election results. Ten of twelve eligible members voted,
results as follows:
gelinas 5
jadecat 4
tsty 1
Joe Gelinas has been elected.
(Unofficial non-member votes: Four non-members voted.
gelinas 2
jadecat 2)
Congratulations, Joe.
Thanks to all three candidates for being willing to serve on the board. That's a generous offer.
Half of you voted for me. I appreciate the confidence. :)
I hope you can still appreciate it in another month, or six. ;-)
congratz gelinas....
I'll say it again here- Congrats Joe. :) And thank you to everyone who voted for me. Maybe we'll try again next year!
darn if tsty hadn't voted himself (presumably) there could have been a runoff
Perhaps it's time to remove the link to the voting booth from the home page?
Yes, it is. I have a patch for it if any root wants to apply it to the subversion repository and regenerate the web site. Let me know if you want it.
(It really shouldn't be that hard to comment out a single line of the page. Just do it, already.)
if someone is patching stuff.. i have a patch in ~veek/latest.diff
The patch I sent does comment out the line of code. Please patch the related file in the repository so we can keep all the changes in in sync and up to date.
(Re resp:102 - I agree, seems like overkill.)
I disagree. It is not overkill.
(Bureaucracy will kill us yet.)
If the benefits of version control aren't clear, then I'm left to wonder how much programming project experience staff have in a multi-programmer and multi-file environment.
Yes, the benefits of version control are clear to me. However, we are talking about simply adding <!-- and --> around a block of text. If they get lost, it's a simple matter to re-add them. For that, version control, of any kind, is overkill.
So, you'd use version control for some changes and not others? That makes no sense. And not using version control at all makes less sense.
resp:109 the difficulty might be in synchronizing stuff? If you add comments by bypassing svn, when you next rsync, won;t those comments get clobbered?
Minor stuff that didn't really matter if it got clobbered, I'd simply
make sure that all concerned knew about them and worry about
version-control later. ("We don't need no stinkin' source!" as one
programmer of my acquaintance once put it.)
Make this trivial change on the fly, then patch and submit a
version-controlled copy.
If I were doing this stuff regularly, I might even batch up a bunch of
trivial changes. If they got clobbered, I'd cuss at myself and submit
my updates. :)
So is Dan Cross intent on maintaining his seat on the Grex board? I ask this because he stated emphatically last month that he would leave Grex if there was continued discussion citing the leaked wikileaks documents, as he said it could be problematic to his military status. Then Mary said she was going to enter yet another wikileaks item in the new agora and he responded that he was in fact leaving, and hasn't posted since. It reasonable to ask if he intends to continue being part of the board of the corporation that sponsors grex when it is clear that the wikileaks items will continue. If Dan has in fact gone away for good he should at least go ahead and resign his seat rather than create needless potential quorum problems at future meetings.
Why should Dan give a rats ass about Grex at this point? It would be *nice* of him to resign formally if he really doesn't intend to come back. But if I were treated the way he was treated, I would just leave and not concern myself with the problems of the assholes I left behind.
Read resp 0 again: "Dan has served two consecutive terms and is therefore ineligible to run this time..." As it is January, his term has expired, therefore, no need to resign.
See there you go. Problem solved.
Dan said he would be traveling in India and would not be participating on Grex for a month. I hope he will return and continue working as a staff member after his vacation is done. If he doesn't, I think it will be sad for Grex and possibly disastrous. I have no idea who else will do all the work he has done.
resp:117 Over the holiday, I spoke with my brother about this stuff since my brother is a federal employee. He said that even though he actually has the security clearance necessary to view the Wikileaks documents, he also has been forbidden from viewing the wikileaks sites or any mirror sites. So Dan has a legitimate issue. However, when I explained the technology and forgetting items, he said he thought that would be ok. He has not been banned from reading news articles, even those that quote from the Wikileaks site. So if Dan wants to return here after his holiday, forgetting the items probably will be sufficient to protect him but, of course, he would want to talk to his direct supervisor about it since that is who would make the call.
From talking to folks I know in the military that's my understanding as well. They are using their personal computers to read the news on the web and working on disks that have been exposed to WikiLeaks. Not sure how you could avoid that, actually, unless you disconnected from the internet, for starters. I expect Dan is on vacation and will be back soon.
re resp:119: If he does come back, it was a dirty, rotten, scummy trick that didn't cost someone else what it could have. If he doesn't, then it's the same but it costs Dan and all of us. Unless, of course, you replace his skills and contributions yourself, then it just cost us Dan. It did make your point, I suppose. You don't care about other people.
I don't think anything was done to Dan (apart perhaps from some intemperatre language). Nothing has been said here concerning or from wikileaks except what is in the public media, and no legal actions have been taken against any of the public media. How can such public media be verboten?
(( Just for the record, I removed the announcement of the 2010 election results from the MOTD today. ))
(( Thanks ))
You have several choices: