[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-b] Straw Vote Results

At 12:14 04.10.99 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>Listed below are the results from the Straw Vote Election. I was rather
>disappointed that not everyone voted ( less than half voted). In order to
>increase participation in future votes I purpose the following: if you miss
>two (2) straight votes without good cause you will be removed from the list;
>increase notification on my behalf to the list about the vote, any other

If you then want to get rid of an irritating list member, find out when he 
is busy on other things and call two snap votes.

IMNSHO, that is unreasonable; 50% turnout in an email ballot is quite good.
Effective means of increasing turnout (and accuracy):

1) Make sure a REPLY with a simple marking/choosing of text is enough
    for a properly addressed and registered ballot
2) At the 3-working-days-to-go mark, send *individual* ballot forms to
    all those who haven't responded.

I hope the votebot will take care of some of this.

About the vote, I did some percentages:

>DID NOT VOTE: 27       56%
>OPTION A: 12    57%    25%
>OPTION B: 9     42%    19%

This is "no consensus" by any definition of consensus.
Note that since we're making decisions by voting, the question of who is on 
the list, who is entitled to vote, and who casts a vote for an organization 
gets to be important, whereas it is not so important if we hope for a true 

In particular, the 2 members with mpaa addresses and 3 members with AOL 
addresses voted consistently - but an AOL address doesn't mean you belong 
to AOL.
I would vote :-) that all such votes that are taken before we're in a 
situation where we *have* to make a decision be labelled "opinion polls"; 
if we have to make a decision by vote, the question of who votes, and why, 
must be clarified.


Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway