[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

i believe
that what you describe is a happy coincidence, not a necessary  
consequent.
and I believe
that makes all the difference in the world.

yes, the coordinators determined that for various reasons not enough  
people had had a chance to vote.
and they provided such a chance.

that chance did not force anyone to vote.
that chance did not predetermine that anyone would vote.
or predetermine the way in which they would vote if they did vote.

as I argue, a happy coincidence.

but if you need to have it appealed in order to feel comfortable with  
the amendment, and according to the appeals process can find 3 others  
who will sign the appeal with you (as I am absolutely certain you can)  
then you should file the appeal.

a.


On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:45, Danny Younger wrote:

> Hello Avri,
>
> It seems to me that those who managed the voting process tallied the  
> votes on the date that the vote was scheduled to conclude.  They  
> determined that the 2/3 threshhold requirement had not been met  
> (which means that the proposed amendment had failed to muster enough  
> support to pass) and then found a pretext to extend the vote so that  
> a different outcome could be achieved.
>
> You argue that extending the vote could not make more people vote...  
> of course it could, and it did.  We see the results before us.
>
> PS.  No one is threatening anything.  It was made clear that a 72  
> hour window for appeals is available, and I am simply seeking  
> answers from those that managed the election.
>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 9/27/09, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>> To: "Governance/IGC List" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Date: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 2:28 PM
>>
>> On 27 Sep 2009, at 14:05, Danny Younger wrote:
>>
>>> to extend the vote in order to obtain the particular
>> outcome that they themselves preferred.
>>
>> there is no way they could have done this.
>>
>> Extending the vote could not make more people vote.
>> it also did not make more people vote in favor of the
>> amendments.
>> your consequent does not (can not) follow for you
>> antecedents.
>>
>> if anyone had chosen to not vote during the original
>> period, they could have continued choosing not to vote.
>> an if anyone felt forced to vote, in some way, but having
>> the vote extended, they still could have voted against to
>> amendment.
>>
>> there is no logical way to assume anything from these
>> circumstances.
>>
>> btw, threatening to appeal seems a bit well, threatening.
>> either appeal or don't, but why threaten?
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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