RE: [atlarge-discuss] New panel elections?

["Hugh Blair" <hblair@hotfootmail.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola
> 
> I have not made my mind on this yet.

I have, and I think this unofficial poll of the membership shows that
the majority have a defined view.
 
> So I'll take more views from panelists and members, and then I'll try
> to follow one of the two realistic options: either the remaining
> members of the panel decide to officially ask the membership about
> having new panel elections, or they do not decide to do so, and in
> this case I will start to call replacements in the panel; in this
> case, once no more replacements can be found, the vacant places in the
> panel may be filled by a new election.

My view: An OFFICIAL list of all the members should be gathered in one
place - I really don't care who holds it for now. Another canvas, call
it a vote or a pole, at this time it doesn't matter, should be taken
of that list with one question:

"Should the current Panel be disbanded and a new one elected. YES/NO"

This could happen within a just a few days - no need to drag it out.
Voting should start 3 days after the notification of an upcoming vote,
and although I have some doubts about Joop's PollingBooth, we have no
alternative at the moment and it can be used for this action. Just to
be clear, I have *no* doubt about Joop's honesty, I just don't know
enough about the PollingBooth to feel totally comfortable with it.

We then have 3 possible outcomes:
--------------------------------
"NO"
If the answer is "NO", then the current Panel be populated from
the last voted-on group, ONLY and ONLY IF they are asked directly:

1 -"Do you want to be drafted/moved to the Panel"
2 -"Do you commit yourself to be active as much as possible and if you
find your personal circumstances prohibit that, you'll notify the
Panel and the Membership of this and withdraw from the Panel."

These questions to them and their answers should be in this public
forum - the AtLarge-discuss list. I would give each such person 5
days to respond. If they can't/don't respond within those 5 days,
the answer is assumed to be "NO". The list that is asked should be
longer (by X?) than the empty positions to allow for possible "NO"s.

If enough don't answer "YES", then this process starts over with
a new panel being elected just as if the membership had voted "YES".
--------------------------------
"YES"
The holder of the OFFICIAL membership list will send out an email, 3
days after the close of voting, to each member, notifying them that 
nominations are immediately open for new Panel members.

--------------------------------
NO ANSWER or YES/NO Vote within 5% of a tie
If this happens - very unlikely in my view - then we should proceed
as if there had been a "NO" vote, since this is the procedure most
in concert with the current agreement on which this group operates.

For those that have problems with some of this happening on the
".info" vs. the ".org" domain, I would ask you to hold your 
objections until this process is over. Just think of the ".info" 
domain as a hired (although Joop has provided it free) contractor
that administers the voting this time. In no way does this obligate
us to continue using this tool in any future.

With this message I've noted my views. I call on the members to
reply to this with:

1 - suggestions and changes, or
2 - a "YES" or "NO", telling this group how you feel about my ideas.

Because the SUBJECT of this email will stay the same, if you totally
agree or disagree, you can strip out all of this message just keeping
one, and only one of the following lines:

[YES]
[NO]

Now carry on with your Sunday,

Hugh























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