[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Danny,

after the extension of the voting period, I approached various people 
and asked them to vote. I always said the same thing, it doesn't matter 
how you vote but please do vote so that we reach the 2/3 threshold.

Several of the people I approached during the consultation meeting in 
Geneva hadn't got a ballot, which in itself seemed to me a good reason 
for extending the voting period.

jeanette

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
____________________________________________________________
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