[wlug_org] Online Voting

[Jamie Baddeley]

On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 12:54, Tony Wills wrote:
> At 07:51 8/08/04 +1200, Jethro wrote:
> >Appoliges all,
> >
> >I've pulled the current issue, and added a notice saying that these
> >aren't offical decisions, only an indicater for the org list.
> >
> >I thought these were want were wanted, but I was too fast. ;-)
> 
Yes Jethro. Too quick :-) Nevermind - technically speaking it looks
really good!
---

Before I start all of this, let me observe that money always seems to
make things more complicated. Let me also observe that we must find a
way through this. Brent's mail the other night (ref:Wellylug $$$
management plan (was reason for leaving)) had a lot of good comment on
this area. 

Frankly I'm sure we could all do without the hassle of all of this, but
I suspect we need to do this to solve the money problem - and hey we
might get something positive out of it...like to ability to accurately
and democratically steer in direction that is driven by the
membership..But it (this process) is in danger becoming a monster and
getting out of control, see we need to exercise caution, not try to
build a enormo-system and minimise flames etc. Let's try and take this
easy..

Also we should all note that what we are talking about here may present
some significant work for a certain webmaster - so we also need to work
out how to solve this....

> Yes I think the voting system may be what the LUG wants, but we need to 
> agree how it is going to be used and need agreement on the actual poll 
> contents.
> 
> The website polling system could be used to make decisions for the LUG and 
> may be preferred over votes at meetings as it is far more accessible - you 
> don't have to be at a particular time and place to vote so potentially you 
> could get better participation.
> 
> 1) But you'd firstly have to define a LUG member as being someone who is 
> registered on the website.
> 

Yes. This seems to me to be the most sensible way of doing it. I think
in the past it's been determined simply by who subscribes to the mailing
list, but due to a number of reasons, it probably makes more sense to
use the website now, and it's database. It also allows us to store more
info about a user, or for the user to store more info about themselves.
I'd be surprised (from an information management perspective) to see a
reason why this is a bad idea (say vs mail list). So first we all need
to agree that membership is defined by entering valid info into the user
data of the website. We would probably need to define further criteria
to establish whether someone has voting rights, (Lives in Lower NI
region. Mailing list membership etc etc) and what makes them an active
member.

> 2) Then you'd have to decide whether decisions were made upon a majority of 
> the votes cast, or whether you need an actual majority of the total 
> registered members to vote in favour.  (This has already been discussed a 
> little).  I am adamant that you need a majority of the total LUG members to 
> vote in favour of a motion (poll) to make a decision otherwise the system 
> is too easily abused.  Which may mean you have to work quite hard to get 
> anything agreed upon (but then again those who bother to register are 
> probably those who'd bother voting so you may get good participation).
> 
I think as long as you have a way to gauge *active* membership, then
Majority % of all *active* members will be the best. We can also set
what constitutes a majority to something more than 50% if we see that is
appropriate...so then it's a pretty clear consensus - but note this will
have an effect of the number of options a member can select from in a
poll (too many choices means we never reach a majority, and never make
any decisions)

> 3) As for deciding upon a poll question, I think you basically treat it 
> like a 'motion' at a meeting and require a person to put forward a question 
> or options within a poll, and another person to second that motion.  That 
> way there is nothing to stop any motion (poll) on anything so long as at 
> least two people want it and hopefully people have enough restraint and 
> good sense not to second frivolous or stupid motions.
> 
Seems reasonable. The question should be the issue, and the choices
should be the various motions that people can choose from.

> 4) Then there is the question of how to decide how long to run each poll 
> (there should be a minimum period for all polls).  You could have a poll 
> finish early if a majority of members have already voted for/against it and 
> further votes can't change the result.

I suggest 1 week. Everyone will know this, and it be reminded on a
reasonably regular basis. It's the Internet for god sakes, how many of
us geeks are away from it for more than a week at a time?
> 
> 5) And finally there is the question of whether a meeting should be able to 
> over-ride a poll result (if you got better participation via a poll perhaps 
> it is more valid than the vote of those who manage to get to a meeting).
> 
I suggest if a result is within +- 5% of decision (i.e marginal) then it
should be discussed at the LUG meeting - those who want to debate it
further usually have a funny knack of making it to meetings like that.

> If this is going to go anywhere we need feedback from as many members as 
> possible, so press that reply button! 
Done Sir. I hope org_list people will take the time to comment, rather
than observe. Just observing is not why we started the org_list. We are
all equals - please feedback. The thing with the org_list at the moment
is we too many passengers, and not enough people speaking their mind.
Speak up please!


jamie