<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots
- To: "Jim Archer" <jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots
- From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:09:28 -0400
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcNH1t+xxYCzYYxVQ3eph99/0BKHUwACNL2w
- Thread-topic: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots
Friendly amendments are determined by the one making the motion. As
that is technically me, however, and I was doing this on behalf of the
Ex.Com., I would confer with Ex.Com. on the nature of the amendment.
As for endorsements, there is no explicit rule, so I think I would look
to Bob C., whois is our Roberts' Rules expert.
Bob?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:04 PM
To: Elana Broitman; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots
Elana, do friendly amendments require the approval of all those who
endorsed it? If not, can the endorsement be withdrawn?
--On Friday, July 11, 2003 1:50 PM -0400 Elana Broitman
<ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Explanation
>
> A number of registrars had expressed a wish for anonymous voting in
> order to protect Constituency members and potentially foster greater
> voter participation. The current voting process posts each
> Constituency member's vote as soon as such member votes. Please note
> that only Constituency members (who have passwords to the boardrooms
> site) may view voting results. At the Montreal meeting, we discussed
> several options for changing this process, including a change to post
> only the collective results rather than individual votes. On the list
> there was a question about whether or not abstentions may be viewed
> under one of the first 3 proposals. We will determine that fact prior
> to the vote. Motion
>
> Consequently, there is a motion for moving to one of the following
> processes:
> 1. Post only the collective voting results, not individual results,
and
> only at the conclusion of the voting period.
>
> 2. Post only the collective voting results, not individual results,
> during the entire voting period.
>
> 3. Post individual voting results, but only at the conclusion of the
> voting period.
>
> 4. Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire
> voting period.
>
> Process
>
> Pursuant to the Constituency Rules of Procedure, this motion needs to
> have 5 endorsements, and will be put to a vote under the current
> voting procedures after a 14-day discussion period. Friendly
> amendments will be accepted and such changes made to the ballot.
> Unfriendly amendments will receive a separate ballot.
>
> Additional Information
>
> In addition to making this change, there was discussion at the
> Montreal meeting about whether or not the Executive Committee should
> continue to manage the voting process. Apparently, the only way that
> it is possible to conduct votes through the boardrooms.org site is
> for the manager of the process (Ex.Com.) to have access to individual
> votes. While we do not intend to use such access, the Constituency
> may wish to delegate this task to a third party that is not a member
> of the Constituency. However, as that would entail delegation of all
> boardrooms.org management functions, including membership rolls,
> passwords, etc., it may be a broader change than anticipated, require
> hiring of a secretary, and/or switching to an alternative online
> service. We plan to investigate the options and bring them to the
> Constituency for consideration in short order. In the meantime,
> however, with important votes coming up for the Constituency, we did
> not want to hold up the consideration of a change in vote posting.
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|