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.

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. 

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.

response 261 of 332:

Dec 19 14:56 UTC 2001

(Jan slipped in.)

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.  

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.

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.

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.)

response 271 of 332:

Dec 19 21:31 UTC 2001

Flip the damn coin, already.  :)

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...

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.

response 277 of 332:

Dec 20 05:27 UTC 2001

I don't see any compelling reason why this has to be handled before the
beginning of the new year.  Go ahead and do the full 15 days.