Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 10:29 AM 12/12/2001 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Thomas Roessler wrote on 11.12.01, 22:39:02:
> > This kind of change of rules is inappropriate at this point of time
> > (i.e., when the election is almost started).  Instead of changing
> > the meaning of a candidature and a vote at this point of time, the
> > GA membership should either be given an opportunity to decide on
> > this question by vote, too, or the vote should happen by the rules
> > which were to be expected from Danny's original announcement.
>
>I just looked in the archives, and Danny indeed
>announced on 2001-12-05:
>   If no one else volunteers for that position, I will
>   appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in
>   one week's time.
>
>/The/ representative means one person. If it had been
>known before the end of the (quasi-) nomination phase that
>one voting GA representative *and* two non-voting GA
>representatives were to be selected, we might have seen
>more than three volunteers.
>
>Danny explained in his 2001-12-11 posting that the
>expansion is due to an un-ratified proposal within the
>Task Force. While I understand that he wants to act as
>quickly as possible, it must be clear at the outset
>and /before/ the nomination process *how many* people
>(and how many of them with voting rights) are to be
>selected.
>
>To move forward:
>
>a) We could stick to the original proposal and take
>    a vote for *one* candidate. That is a quick way
>    to solve it, but if there should be additional
>    vacancies, we would need to take another vote.
>    (This seems to depend on the TF, right?)
>
>b) We could extend the nomination phase and see if
>    there are additional candidates under these new
>    circumstances. This is a clear-cut solution, but
>    it would leave the GA unrepresented while the
>    nomination is extended (and the holidays are
>    approaching, too).
>
>c) We could take a double vote in one (if that is
>    technically feasible):
>    GA voters could rank the current candidates
>    (Jeff, Eric, Thomas) and then choose whether
>    they want to send the first, the top 2 or top 3.
>    If a majority wants to send all 3, all 3 will
>    become GA representatives, while the first is
>    the voting representative.
>    But I'm afraid it would be a somewhat confusing
>    ballot. ;) Perhaps someone can improve it?
>
>I understand that Danny wants to commend those who
>step forward to work in the Task Force. But this
>cannot mean that everyone volunteering is guaranteed
>a place as representative (voting or non-voting) --
>the rules must be set out clearly before the whole
>thing starts.
>
>Personally, I would prefer a) to c) to b).


         I agree that (a) is the best.  If we were determined to do 
something akin to (c), we might be able to do so in the following way:  On 
the ballot, allow GA members to vote YES/NO on each of the three 
candidates.  The rule would be that the candidate witth the most YES votes 
is the representative, and the next highest vote-getter is the observer, 
except that a candidate will not be deemed elected to *any* position unless 
he receives YES votes on more than half the ballots submitted.  That gives 
the GA the option to elect two people if it chooses, but it also gives a 
majority of the GA the ability to say that it doesn't want particular 
people representing it on the TF (as either "representative" or 
"observer").  Either way, the GA gets the candidates it deserves.

Jon

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html