[governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sat Feb 16 14:56:17 EST 2013 

Hi,

Ian, I really really want to agree with you.

Unfortunately Adam is right, we don't want to set a precedent for the rerunning of a vote whenever we don't get the vote we want.  People might not be voting because they don't care or even because they don't agree.

I think that if the IGC wishes to re-vote, it should be able to decide to do so.  I think calling for a discussion on that and perhaps the substance of the amendment might be a better process to go through.  And if we do go to vote again, we should plan on a longer period and should work with the co-cordinators to make sure we get out enough votes.  I am not even sure most of the voters understood the quorum requirement. 

Had the co-cordinators decided to lengthen the ballot before knowing the vote because they saw we were not reaching 'quorum,' I would have applauded their attention to the details and supported the lengthened call.  Since that did not happen, I really do not support continuing the vote, though I do think it is reasonable to discuss a re-vote in the IGC, see if there is consensus on a re-vote and open up the proposed amendment for more discussion.  For myself, I know in my vote there was one amendment I did not understand well enough to be  either for or against.  Perhaps I am not alone.

avri



On 16 Feb 2013, at 14:35, Ian Peter wrote:

> sorry if my last message wasn't clear - I am in favour of counting the existing votes as valid, and just looking to boost the numbers of votes count, rather than running the whole process again.
> 
> Ian
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 6:27 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter
> Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
> 
> Agree it would be helpful to know how many votes.
> 
> But before re-doing the vote (how many times, until 'we' get the
> result we want?), could we have the amendments presented again.  With
> time for discussion, and then see if again there is support to hold a
> vote.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sala,
>> 
>> How many votes short are we of a positive result?
>> 
>> That would determine perhaps the best way to go.
>> 
>> In this case I dont think there is any great risk in re-opening the vote to
>> get extra responses. The results in each ballot are clearly in favour of the
>> reforms, the will of the caucus seems clear, it’s just a technicality that
>> we have not had enough responses. (I would feel differently if on any of the
>> ballots the no votes were roughly equivalent to the yes votes)
>> 
>> So I would suggest re-opening the ballot to allow those who havent voted to
>> do so – accompanied by encouragement and reminders.
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 10:17 PM
>> To: Ian Peter
>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>> 
>> Dear Ian and All,
>> 
>> You are correct. I apologize to the IGC for the oversight, the mistake is
>> mine.
>> 
>> As such, we currently have two options and they are:-
>> 
>> Option 1
>> Accept from the votes that all the proposals have failed based on the
>> results of the votes.
>> 
>> Option 2
>> Re-run the votes
>> 
>> 
>> If we take Option 2, we run the risk of setting a precedent for extending
>> voting periods for other things that require voting including coordinator
>> elections. Should we consider the current votes invalid and cast fresh votes
>> or extend the votes.
>> 
>> In any event, the current revisions to the Charter that are on the website
>> will be reversed to reflect what it originally was.
>> 
>> For the sake of completeness, the record of the votes is as follows:
>> 
>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>> 
>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>> 
>> Thank you and Kind Regards,
>> Sala
>> 
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sala, are you sure?
>>> 
>>> The charter amendment process states that it is 2/3 of membership required
>>> for charter amendments, not 2/3 of those who bothered to vote. My
>>> understanding is that none of the votes result in charter amendments,
>>> because none of them had over 2/3 of members supporting. The relevant
>>> charter quote is below.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Amendments to the Charter
>>> 
>>> This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten
>>> (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members
>>> of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based
>>> on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter,
>>> everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for
>>> amending the charter.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (perhaps it should be different but it isn’t on my reading)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ian Peter
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 8:11 AM
>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> Subject: [governance] Results of IGC Charter Amendment Poll
>>> 
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> Greetings! This is a brief update on the results of the IGC Charter
>>> Amendment Poll. Here are the results:
>>> 
>>> 76 responses were submitted, though some respondents did not answer all
>>> questions, as none of them were compulsory.
>>> 
>>> On proposal 1, 70 voted in favour, 4 against, and 2 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 2, 62 voted in favour, 5 against, and 9 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 3, 71 voted in favour, 2 against, and 3 did not vote.
>>> On proposal 4, 65 voted in favour, 3 against, and 8 did not vote.
>>> 
>>> This means that all proposals pass with greater than 80% approval, which
>>> is excess of the 2/3 requirement.  The text of the amendments is found at
>>> http://igcaucus.org/formally-proposed-charter-amendments and the charter as
>>> amended is at http://igcaucus.org/charter and
>>> http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.
>>> 
>>> I would also like to acknowledge and thank you all for your contributions,
>>> elaborate discussion and for taking the time to vote. Thank you to all those
>>> who proposed the amendments and initiated the process and to all those who
>>> took part. Special thanks also to Norbert for conducting the Poll and to
>>> Jeremy for helping out.
>>> 
>>> With Kind Regards,
>>> Sala (on behalf of the Coordinators)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>> P.O. Box 17862
>>> Suva
>>> Fiji
>>> 
>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Tel: +679 3544828
>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> 
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> 
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>> P.O. Box 17862
>> Suva
>> Fiji
>> 
>> Twitter: @SalanietaT
>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>> Tel: +679 3544828
>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> 
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> 
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list