Re: [council] Enfranchising absent voters

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

While anything can be gamed, including absenting oneself right before  
the vote, I believe that the text is better as it stands.

I tried to think of a couple of ways of tightening it, e.g.

- absent as of the time the role call is taken - but people arrive  
late, and some have to leave early
- absent when the agenda item first comes under discussion, but this  
is still subject to the condition above and, the person who can game  
it by leaving just before the vote cold also game it by leaving just  
before the discussion.  which is a sense is even more counter  
productive.

and while it is true that people could game it, by coming to fewer  
meetings or by always leaving just before a critical vote, I think  
that this sort of behavior would:

a. be unlikely in anyone wiling to serve on the council
b. be noticed in such a way that some one would eventually take action

I think Philip's point in the his PS.  is well taken, by and large,  
whenever someone has said, I need more time, or I need to consult, we  
have delayed the vote until the next meeting.

a.


On 18 Jan 2008, at 09:49, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> I argued against this new change in the group as it gets too complex.
> It would mean a council member chooses to vote then or later.
> But would only vote later if the trigger for an e-vote that the  
> outcome may be affected
> applies.
> But that choice itself (to vote later or not) itself may affect the  
> trigger.
> This means the vote is open to gaming and the choice is thus  
> unethical.
>
> Moreover, presenting such a complex proposal to the Board would  
> likely kill it.
>
> Philip
>
> PS Our current practise is to delay a vote until we are all ready,  
> so the benefit of the
> addition seems to be small in comparison to the cost in complexity /  
> ethics.