<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>Please tell us more about your experience in extending votes.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What is the criteria used? Who decides to extend them? Do incumbents fair better than others? Are they referendums?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I note that your national elections have never been extended. What elections are your refering to that are extended?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is very important to governance and your insight should be shared.<BR><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 9/28/09, <SPAN>Anriette</SPAN> Esterhuysen <I><anriette@apc.org></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette@apc.org><BR>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote<BR>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>Date: Monday, September 28, 2009, 8:36 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>Dear IGC<BR><BR>I respect the concerns raised by Danny and others with regard to the<BR>extension of the vote, particularly as the nature of the vote involved<BR>amending the IGC charter. <BR><BR>But I believe that in the final analysis the majority of voting members<BR>expressed their view, and, if the voting period was not extended, and<BR>there were a number of people who felt that for one reason or another<BR>they did not have an opportunity to vote, we would be in a state of<BR>limbo that would undermine our ability to work as a caucus.<BR><BR>As Magaly said: "...the number of votes in favor of the charter<BR>amendment is very higher in relation to who is against, I think this<BR>disparity say much more about the decision of list members to adopt the<BR>new text than if all the rules were strictly followed or not." It is<BR>also not clear that extension violated any rule.<BR><BR>My understanding of the coordinators'
decision was that they were<BR>motivated by trying to maximise participation. I think this was the<BR>right thing to do, even if not ideal. <BR><BR>The consequences of a charter amendment vote being taken when some<BR>people felt that they did not have sufficient opportunity to vote would<BR>have been equally unsettling for the caucus. I would have prefered for<BR>the voting period not to be extended, but under the circumstances I<BR>believe it was the best course of action, and consistent with the goal<BR>of getting as many people as possible to participate (which I believe is<BR>the responsibility of the coordinators).<BR><BR>This period in the IGC has been a pretty grim one, but such periods are<BR>normal in groups of people that work together. We will get beyond it. <BR><BR>>From my many years of experience in online voting (APC has been using<BR>this method since the early 1990s) extension of voting periods, or<BR>meeting periods, has been
needed more often than not.<BR><BR>We have never done this to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather<BR>as a means to give the decisions and outcomes greater legitimacy and<BR>endurance through ensuring that the largest number of people in our<BR>network participates. We also rarely make use of secret ballots. In<BR>fact, we only make use of a secret ballot when members elect the board<BR>of directors.<BR><BR>Btw, I found Paul Lehto's comments about the secret ballot very<BR>interesting.. thanks for posting Paul.<BR><BR>Recently APC has revised our bylaws in line with changes in non-profit<BR>law in California (where APC is registered). <BR><BR>One of the really awkward things we had to get around was that<BR>California law does not allow for asynchronous online meetings of the<BR>organisation's governing bodies (we have a board, and a member council).<BR>Eletronic meetings are considered legal, but only if they are in real<BR>time using
telephone, online or video conferencing.<BR><BR>We found this very annoying as we have always worked asynchronously, and<BR>want to to continue to do so. It is cheaper, suits people who are busy,<BR>and who are located in just about all timezones.<BR><BR>To get around this we have developed a complex methodology for online<BR>meetings that involved an online "pre-meeting discussion" which can be<BR>asynchronous, and which is then followed by a written ballot which can<BR>be submitted electronically.<BR><BR>Not ideal... but necessary to comply with the rules :) Fortunately we<BR>don't use voting very often.<BR><BR>Cheers<BR><BR>Anriette<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org"
ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR> <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For all list information and functions, see:<BR> <A href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>