RE: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Then I hear no objections. Good. Let's hope the Panel enact it, if they can
get enough of them to vote on it that is...:-)

Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James S. Tyre [mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 3:22 PM
> To: Joanna Lane; A/S Mauro D. Ríos; Richard Henderson;
> atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Cc: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
>
>
> My apologies if I was unclear.  Absentee panelists (or board
> members if we
> get to that point) is a real problem, for which there should be a
> "curing"
> mechanism.  I was reacting only to Mauro's suggestion (at the
> bottom, I've
> snipped everything that preceded it) that *members* risk
> suspension if they
> don't vote in a panel (or Board) election.
>
> And I further agree with you that requiring panelists to vote
> (even if the
> vote only is to abstain) a certain percentage of the time is far better
> than reducing the quorum requirement.
>
> At 03:09 PM 6/1/2003 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James S. Tyre [mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:47 PM
> > > To: Joanna Lane; A/S Mauro D. Ríos; Richard Henderson;
> > > atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> > > Cc: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> > > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
> > >
> > >
> > > That's not correct, though it could be made correct in the
> future.  This
> > > election was a bit odd in that, in addition to the voting for
> panelists,
> > > there were also a series of questions for the membership.  So, in pure
> > > theory, one could have answered some or all of the questions
> > > without voting
> > > for any of the candidates.  But there was no option to
> express "abstain"
> > > rather than voting for any candidate; and if memory serves (I'm not
> > > positive on this), there has been no "abstain" option on any
> prior Panel
> > > election we've had.
> >
> >I agree with you, that's something to be addressed, but I thought your
> >strong objection was made in reference to internal Panel voting,
> whereby a
> >panelist is disqualified if they do not vote 3 times in
> succession or 75% of
> >all votes taken, and was not made in reference to membership votes or
> >questionnaires, which is a different topic. If memory serves, all panel
> >votes have included the abstain option, and if not, certainly
> could, which
> >would make your point mute, if not already. Correct?
> >
> >Absentee panelists is a real and crippling problem - they (the Panelist)
> >have to be given some mechanism to keep moving forward. Reducing
> the quorum
> >is less preferable to the 3 strike rule in my book.
> >
> >Joanna
> >
> > >
> > > At 02:36 PM 6/1/2003 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: James S. Tyre [mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com]
> > > > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] REPROT ON ELECTION AND RESULTS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely opposed.
> > > >
> > > >James,
> > > >Your point is mute because there is an "abstain" option in
> every vote.
> > > >Joanna
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is one thing to put procedures in place to verify that
> > > > > "members" are in
> > > > > fact real people, etc., or to require Panelists to vote at least
> > > > > a certain
> > > > > percentage of the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is quite another to require members to vote or risk
> > > suspension.  Using
> > > > > the most recent U.S. Presidential election as but one
> > > example, suppose I
> > > > > declined to vote for Bush, Gore, Nader or any other third
> > > party candidate
> > > > > because I was not comfortable voting in favor of any.  Should
> > > I lose my
> > > > > right to vote in subsequent elections because I made a conscious
> > > > > choice not
> > > > > to vote for any rather than to vote for the least repugnant?
> > > > >
> > > > > It is telling that the voter turnout almost always is
> > > meaningfully higher
> > > > > in one party actual or virtual dictatorships than in
> (semi) democratic
> > > > > societies.  If memory serves, didn't more than 90% vote in favor
> > > > > of Saddam
> > > > > when he last ran for "election?"
> > > > >
> > > > > In a semi-democratic society, the right *not* to vote, without
> > > > > repercussion, is, and should be, as sacred as the right, and
> > > the use of
> > > > > that right, to vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > I state this as a strongly held principled position.  Who I
> > > voted for in
> > > > > this election is my business, but I did vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > At 02:47 PM 6/1/2003 -0300, A/S Mauro D. Ríos wrote:
> > > > > >Richard,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Totally agree !!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I would propose that the member that doesn't vote in the
> > > elections of a
> > > > > >Panel or he doesn't vote in three occasions where it is
> > > consulted to the
> > > > > >members, be suspended the membership.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >greetings,
> > > > > >Mauro.-
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> James S. Tyre                               mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
> Co-founder, The Censorware Project             http://censorware.net
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de