[governance] voting process - various issues

[Parminder]

McTim

Like everyone else, I have been  waiting for your response with bated
breath. :) 

More seriously,

Since everyone would also be dreading what may follow on the list, Ill be
short and too the point. Almost every single thing Id say has been mentioned
in the notes I sent. But I can repeat them once (only). 

> I think our differences here are a matter of tense, and perhaps in
> different Latin translations.

If we have political differences it is fine, and we do have them. But lets
be fair to the list participants, and to ourselves, and not tell them that
the voting process has been going through such tumult over the past few
months over a 'tense'. We know it is much more, and Id appreciate that we
peg our discussion more to the underlying substantive issues. In my note I
have associated the voting process issue with the broader real issues as I
understand them. I don't think it is about a tense or latin translations. 

> Means that one declares membership WHEN you vote, not before ("As part
> of the voting process").  

The voting process starts with declaration of the voting process, and the
next step is of affirmation of membership. How it gets down it constrained
by the possibilities available. In this case, manual direct emailing was
considered the best method given the circumstances I have explained in great
detail in my note. 

>This implies a one step process ( I see
> three clicks, two sets of radio buttons and a submit button). 

We have till now only used email text based method. I did not have the web
option available with me, and was generally trying to stick as close as
possible to the method we used earlier, but correcting its fault of not
ascertaining membership as per the charter's requirement.  

>In any
> case, the "i.e." stnds for "id est" which means "in other words" or
> "that is (to say)".   In other words, the charter is quite clear that
> affirmation should be on the voter form itself.

I  understand the meaning of i.e.. but I have listed in detail in my note
what I considered as the problems associated with taking affirmation on the
same email on which the vote is cast. I stand by my judgment on it, and I am
very sure that we would have been in a very bad situation if I had tried
such a thing. 

So, given the constraints and the real complications that were anticipated
the voter form could as well be in two parts - one for affirming membership
and only on certain conditions (subscription to the charter) the second part
is made available. It was so in the manual process I followed, it will be so
in the web based process that will now be followed. In the earlier proposed
process these two steps would have been separated by a few days and in case
of web based system by a second or less. If you are interested in
hair-splitting then it may interest you to know that there will still be two
web pages, one for subscribing to the charter, and on  a positive response
alone the next page of actual ballot will open. (No, I did not do the
design, the person I requested help from did it himself.)

> So I think the The charter does lay out a voting process that is
> fairly specific.

If it were fairly specific, how is the web based button system you endorse
so different from the email text based one process followed the last time.
One of the two then must then be wrong as per the charter. Any comments on
this. 

The fact is, the charter lays the wider parameters and no specific voting
process, a point, like all others above, I have already mentioned in my
note.  

> Ascertaining before hand (what AD calls a "loyalty oath", is where you
> went awry IMO.

Ascertaining membership before the voting is the charter's  requirement.
That's the meaning of "a voter must affirm membership..... in order to
vote".  

As for Avri calling it 'loyality oath' and you following her on it are your
respective problems.  But yes, this may have resulted in the fact that the
last election did not get held as per the charter (not even the process you
now endorse). 

You can call it a loyality oath derisively, but the charter requires it. And
the loyality oath is still there in the new voting process, it would be on a
web form (like all those we give to Microsoft et al :)). And Avri now agree
that we should be able to make members list other than at the time of
elections - would her and your loyality oath aversion not be operative then.
Because one has to surely declare subscription to the charter for it. 

And yes, this term 'loyality oath' is a bit insulting to the 125 members who
volunteered to state their subscription to the charter and affirm IGC
membership. 

Parminder 






> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:45 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] voting process - various issues
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> I think our differences here are a matter of tense, and perhaps in
> different Latin translations.
> 
> It is my view that the phrase "(i.e. a voter must affirm membership on
> the voter form in order to vote)."
> 
> Means that one declares membership WHEN you vote, not before ("As part
> of the voting process").  This implies a one step process ( I see
> three clicks, two sets of radio buttons and a submit button).  In any
> case, the "i.e." stnds for "id est" which means "in other words" or
> "that is (to say)".   In other words, the charter is quite clear that
> affirmation should be on the voter form itself.
> 
> So I think the The charter does lay out a voting process that is
> fairly specific.
> 
> Ascertaining before hand (what AD calls a "loyalty oath", is where you
> went awry IMO.
> 
> I fully support the notion of a web based vote/affirmation.
> 
> I look forward to reading you proposal tomorrow/
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> mctim.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> >
> >
> > I am enclosing a note on various issues that have come up regarding the
> > voting process for the election of co-coordinator. I should be able to
> > declare the method to be used for voting by Tuesday, and give three days
> for
> > comments. Meanwhile I will also clarify some other quires that have been
> > raised which are not covered by this note.
> >
> >
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> mctim.blogspot.com
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance