Re: [registrars] proposed new by law "amendments section" comments

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> thanks for the suggested guidance here ross but....

I'm not sure what you are saying Ken. What I've said is in no way
inconsistent with the intentions that you were trying to convey - unless for
some reason you've taken my general comments as being directed at you
specifically. Taking my words out of context seems to be a growing trend on
this list :-)

To the business at hand - you've raised an important point of fact that
requires further discussion. First, in the current draft, six voters can not
constitute quorum - there is a minimum number of ten voters according to the
draft - this fact needs to be made clearer in a future draft. Thank you for
pointing out this lack of clarity in the text.

Regarding quorum, etc., you say that a minimum of 10% is too low and that
50% of the members must cast a vote in order for it to be binding. I say
that this number is far too high for most practical purposes but that in any
event, 10% of eligible voters to a minimum of ten voters might be too low
anyways.  I also agreed with you that we need to set the bar higher for
bylaws amendments than we do for other more regular matters. Is this a fair
summary of the salient points of our discussion thus far?

Thankfully, voter turn-out is something that we can easily measure. A
logical approach would be to take a look at the historical trend and make a
decision based on that. It is in neither our best interests or that of the
constituency to quibble over something so statistically factual as voter
turn-out.

In looking at the last 10 ballots that we undertook (the sum of all voting
through boardrooms.org) we averaged 20.9 voters. This includes the amazing
high of 41 voters for ballot #22 and the amazing low of 1 voter for ballot
#4. If we remove the top two and bottom two, the average falls to an even 20
voters. We've seen bylaws amendments passed by a turnout of 14 members,
individuals elected to important positions with a turnout of 9 voters and
one of the most economically pressing issues in front of the committee,
transfers, was balloted multiple times with the largest turn-out being only
21 members.

These numbers only look at the most current six months. A review of the
Registrar Constituency mailing list archive paints an equally dismal
picture. The fact is, regardless of the issue and absent extenuating
circumstances, voter turnout is very poor. More than three years ago around
this time of the year you indicated on this mailing list that you had strong
concerns about the level of participation in the constituency. It doesn't
appear that the dynamic has substantially changed. This lack of change
definitively illustrates why we should not be arbitrarily picking 50% as a
reasonable hurdle when in fact the average turnout for any votes that we've
had in the last six months are substantially lower than that 50%. Setting
the bar too high effectively paralyzes the constituency decision making
capability.

Someone that has been around this constituency for a long time recently
stated that "we are framing a structure which will guide the constituency
for the next few years and it is best to be deliberate take the time needed
to insure that we don't run into problems in the future that could have been
easily solved by closer analysis and reflection now."

We should listen to that advice.

Regards,


                      -rwr


"There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an
idiot."
                - Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org