|
Grex > Coop12 > #194: Motion to encourage staff delegation of responsibility | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 96 of 120:
| 
Jun 26 04:16 UTC 2003 |
I don't think staff has been added recently. There is a move to afoot to add
at least one at the next board meeting.
|
scg
|
|
response 97 of 120:
|
Jun 26 18:03 UTC 2003 |
I think the big issue right now is that the current staff composition dates
to six or seven years ago. A lot of us who were appointed to staff then were
excited about doing staff stuff for Grex, and had lots of time to do so. A
lot changes in six or seven years. Several of us have completely wandered
away from our staff functions. Those who are still making an effort to be
Grex staff have a lot going on in their lives that they didn't then.
It sounds like things are on the right track now in terms of recruiting new
people, but even that, of course, takes energy from volunteers. I'm hopeful
that once there are a few energetic new people on board, there may some more
energy to devote to getting normal staff processes rolling again, including
recruiting more new people as needed.
|
remmers
|
|
response 98 of 120:
|
Jun 30 11:29 UTC 2003 |
Tuesday, July 1 is the last day to vote on this.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 99 of 120:
|
Jun 30 18:09 UTC 2003 |
"The polls are open through the end of the day (EDT) on Saturday, July 1."
That's why I got confused. ;)
|
remmers
|
|
response 100 of 120:
|
Jul 1 11:04 UTC 2003 |
Oops. The July 1 is correct.
|
remmers
|
|
response 101 of 120:
|
Jul 2 04:17 UTC 2003 |
I've counted the votes. It's close enough that I want to wait
for the treasurer to certify the eligible voter list before
announcing the outcome. I have the list from him as of
yesteday, but he's not available for a few days, and it's
conceivable that a check or two arrived in today's mail
that would change the list of people whose votes should be
counted.
|
other
|
|
response 102 of 120:
|
Jul 2 05:00 UTC 2003 |
Since the treasurer is out of town until the 10th, would you feel
comfortable at least reporting the total number of users who voted?
|
remmers
|
|
response 103 of 120:
|
Jul 2 14:10 UTC 2003 |
68 votes were cast. Roughly 40% of those were member votes,
according to the latest available list of members.
I won't report the breakdown of yes/no votes at this time,
since a change in that after Mark certifies the final voter
list would compromise ballot secrecy.
|
other
|
|
response 104 of 120:
|
Jul 2 17:31 UTC 2003 |
Thank you, and I appreciate your discretion.
|
russ
|
|
response 105 of 120:
|
Jul 3 03:34 UTC 2003 |
Re #103: You could give the yes/no totals without distinction
between members and non-. We'd be able to figure that out after
the fact anyway.
|
janc
|
|
response 106 of 120:
|
Jul 4 01:44 UTC 2003 |
Or we could wait. It'll be a bit before Mark is back in town, but the
suspense won't kill us.
|
remmers
|
|
response 107 of 120:
|
Jul 5 13:14 UTC 2003 |
I'd prefer to wait before giving any figures. Combined yes/no totals
for members and non-members will likely give little clue as to the
official outcome - history tells us that the member and non-member
breakdowns are often widely divergent. Once I have a certified voter
list from Mark, I'll post all the usual info.
|
aruba
|
|
response 108 of 120:
|
Jul 6 11:38 UTC 2003 |
Hi all - I'll be able to respond on Friday. We didn't receive any Paypal
payments in time to affect the vote, but we might have gotten a check in the
mail. If any checks are postmarked 7/1 or earlier, I'll count them. (I'd
say this is unlikely, since I checked the box the day before, but we need to
be sure if the vote is close.)
|
other
|
|
response 109 of 120:
|
Jul 11 23:12 UTC 2003 |
Still awaiting the outcome...
|
aruba
|
|
response 110 of 120:
|
Jul 12 13:32 UTC 2003 |
I checked the box yesterday and adjusted the voters list accordingly. Sorry
for the delay.
|
davel
|
|
response 111 of 120:
|
Jul 12 17:06 UTC 2003 |
... and the results are ... <drumroll> ??????????????????
|
remmers
|
|
response 112 of 120:
|
Jul 12 19:00 UTC 2003 |
... as follows:
# of voting members who cast ballots: 29
yes: 14
no: 15
The motion fails.
|
remmers
|
|
response 113 of 120:
|
Jul 12 19:08 UTC 2003 |
Incidentally, in resp:103 I reported an incorrect figure for the
total number of votes (member and non-member) cast. It was 96, not
68.
Since any user can run the vote program and record a vote, I always
report the non-member vote totals. These are unofficial, since they
don't count toward determining the outcome. The breakdown of non-member
votes on this motion was 58 yes, 9 no. The member and non-member
votes are typically quite different, it should be noted.
|
other
|
|
response 114 of 120:
|
Jul 12 19:30 UTC 2003 |
Anyone care to suggest an interpretation/analysis of the results?
|
carson
|
|
response 115 of 120:
|
Jul 13 01:14 UTC 2003 |
(apathy toward an irrelevant vote?)
|
russ
|
|
response 116 of 120:
|
Jul 13 04:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #114: I'd venture that it means that a very large minority of
the voters think that we can use fresh blood in the "staff farm
team" and can't wait for the consensus process to bring names up
from the mass of users.
|
i
|
|
response 117 of 120:
|
Jul 13 11:31 UTC 2003 |
Take the time - your vote really can make a difference.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 118 of 120:
|
Jul 13 15:14 UTC 2003 |
I think it means a lot of voters read this item and realized staff members
could already do it.
|
russ
|
|
response 119 of 120:
|
Jul 14 22:12 UTC 2003 |
Re #118: There certainly was some action, *while this motion was
pending*. But will it continue?
|
jep
|
|
response 120 of 120:
|
Jul 15 00:45 UTC 2003 |
My "yes" vote was made before I read the discussion here. I didn't see
that it made any difference whether I voted "yes" or "no", and so I
didn't bother to change it. I'm probably happier that it failed.
|