response 175 of 200:

Jan 11 18:28 UTC 1995

   I really liked seeing the concept of being able to revote on
things in the vote program.  It fits in with the idea of democracy
to me, and this type of technology can allow it.  Paper can't, but
we can.  I think its wonderful.

response 177 of 200:

Jan 12 05:23 UTC 1995

Final results:  64 out of 83 eligible voters cast ballots, so the
2/3 quorum was achieved.  55 voted in favor, 9 against.  Since more
than 3/4 of those voting voted in favor of the proposal, the bylaw
amendment passes.

response 179 of 200:

Jan 12 14:23 UTC 1995

Re changing your vote after casting it: Actually, that particular feature
*was* talked about at founders meetings.  It might not be mentioned in
the bylaws or anyplace else on paper, but if I remember correctly
the founders intended votes to be changeable anytime until the polls close,
and viewed this as an integral part of the voting process.

I'm *really* relieved that the proposal passed.  Thanks to everybody who
voted!!

response 181 of 200:

Jan 12 18:33 UTC 1995

   Thank you all who voted.  For or against, thank you.

response 183 of 200:

Jan 12 21:40 UTC 1995

Let's have it *better*!

response 185 of 200:

Jan 13 01:25 UTC 1995

        I'm pleased to see this vote.  I will become a contributor again,
        though
probably not for a month or so.
        More importantly, I think it's made Cyberspace, Inc. much more
stable.  The corporation won't fail because of large growth among
non-local people who like the community but don't feel qualified (or
obliged) to muck with it's politics.

response 187 of 200:

Jan 13 18:34 UTC 1995

Re #179:  I don't remember that details of voting procedures were ever
discussed at founders' meetings, beyond the fact that we intended to
have online votes.  We didn't even plan on writing our own vote program,
but were thinking in terms of getting somebody else's.  It was only
several months after Grex opened to the public that we conducted the
first board election, and a vote program had to be written as efforts
to get a suitable one elsewhere hadn't panned out.  But maybe the issue
was discussed and I simply missed that meeting.

Re #180:  I also found it distasteful.  My personal opinion is that
across-the-board elimination of all quorums was unwise and will have
unfortunate consequences, but time will tell on that one.

response 189 of 200:

Jan 14 03:17 UTC 1995

If we were conducting a scientific opinion poll, then indeed we would
not want people to be able to change their vote.  In such a poll, one is
essentially seeking the uninformed opinion of a large mass of people, by
sampling a much smaller subset, and one of the dangers in such a process
is that the sampling process itself might contaminate the whole.  So,
for instance, if the much smaller sample is encouraged to take their
time, do research, get the facts, and make an informed vote, that small
sample is quite likely to make a different choice than the uninformed
masses.

But we are not conducting a public opinion poll.  We want people to make
the right decision for grex, and we want them to take their time, do
research, get the facts, and make an informed vote that is in the *best*
interests of grex.  There are other things that are important as well,
but that is probably more important than anything else.

response 191 of 200:

Jan 14 07:49 UTC 1995

In a scientific sense, actually, we want the "biased" opinion.  That is,
we want them to be informed, influenced, cajoled, and generally educated
by everyone else.  We want them to weigh all of the possibilities, and
we want people to weigh those opinions, not in an objective vacuum, but
in the very subjective sense of deciding what they *want* the future of
grex to be.  Furthermore, far from wishing people not to influence each
other, we want people to think in terms what other people really want,
we want people to push at each others opinions to understand the logic
behind the words, and we want people to work to find solutions that that
everyone can at least live with, or better yet, that everyone will want.
That is, we'd much rather have consensus building towards unanimity than
a snapshot of a polarized division of opinion.

response 193 of 200:

Jan 14 20:04 UTC 1995

What I *meant* to say is that we want to seek the *informed* opinion of a
large mass of people in an *unbiased* manner. Keeping me on my toes,
Marcus! In regard to consensus: I agree with Dan. I like to do what Marcus
suggests in #191, until everyone is satisfied that the issues are fully
understood (and the course of action discussed and amended to satisfy a
majority that is sensitive to the minorities concerns), and then have a
vote. This is how democracy (one hopes) works. (As Winston Churchill is
said to have said: "Democracy is the world's worst form of government,
except for all the others.")

response 195 of 200:

Jan 14 23:00 UTC 1995

I'd have to say even if we can't achieve consensus we still have to try.
The work to make it worthwhile for as many people as possible is, I
think, essential, to making this system work.  And, besides, there isn't
any real alternative.

response 197 of 200:

Jan 24 11:35 UTC 1995

But that's what we're talking about, "voting", not "straw polls".  I
believe Rane and I agree in the essentials, we're just arguing over word
choice.  I'm "keeping Rane on his toes" because I think people too often
equate "unbiased" with "uninformed", and hence think votes should be run
like straw polls.

response 199 of 200:

Jan 25 07:01 UTC 1995

Unfortunately, we are talking about both simultaneously, without labeling
which we are talking about. My original comment in #190 concerned opinion
polls. Even among those, one could seek an unbiased sampling of
everyone's opinion, or of just voters, etc. Now...I've forgotten what
the point was.. 8-{.