[wlug_org] Online Voting & Wellylug monies etc....

[Wood Brent]

After some thought, my response to Jamie's response :-)

> > The main reason is that one of the mainstays of democratic decisions is
> > dialogue & discussion.
> > 
> True.
> 
> > I see no problem with proxy voting.
> Neither do I. Being nitpicky, I'd ask how do we prove a proxy vote is
> valid...(I suppose a meeting decision is not final until all proxies
> have been checked)

Just like we identify all the hands at a meeting to ensure they belong to
members :-)

All currently pretty informal, as clearly preferred by the members. I think
online voting will require an increased level of formality.

It is difficult to really cheat a show of hands, with little checking/formality
needed. An online vote needs to check membership & ensure only one vote, at the
least, so votes need to be recorded by member, at least up until the final
counting.

If we want to have votes more formal, (only members voting & each only once) &
to be binding on members ... we should really clearly define who is (& thereby
who isn't) a member and how meeting or online voting is to be carried out, and
recorded, and enforced...

So far there have not been any issues that needed such formality & I'm not
convinced we have any yet. A show of hands after a discussion with email
proxies  
is about the simplest & least formal approach. Do we wanna complicate things?

Does any one think I'm complertely wrong & an online voting system will not
introduce extra formality to the current approach?

For those who are not comfortable with a debate at meetings, perhaps a
guideline which suggests that all votes at meetings can only be held after a
minimum of n days discussion over the matter on the org list?? All such
discussions to be publicised on the general list at least n2 days prior to the
meeting. That way there is considered org list discussion/debate, which members
can check out on the archives before the meeting if they are interested in the
issue but don't follow the org list. Then a meeting discussion/debate &
vote....


This seems to cover all bases??? great/stinks/maybe/needs something else????


< cut  >


>
> > So ask the membership, how do you want the cabal to manage any LUG assets?
> What
> > general approach do you want taken? So we can decide what to do based on a
> > expressed membership preference, not just ours.
> > 
> Great idea. Do you want to lead this discussion tomorrow night? You seem
> to be able to encapsulate these issues well.

Given my suggestion above, I think some further discussion on the org list
before bringing it up at a meeting will enable a more considered proposal with
wider support from the cabal members which could then be presented for members
to vote on.

I really think it is a complex issue with more than a few ramifications that
the cabal should discuss & then agree on a proposal with alternatives to
present for the members consideration.

> > 
> > I suggest we discuss the following:
> > 
> > Is Wellylug going to accept donations in future, or reject any form of $$
> or
> > goods of any value being offered to the LUG?
> > 
> Heh, much debate here I suspect :-)

More than likely. I'm not sure the members really want a rule specifying "No
assets", but I could be wrong. I certainly don't & will write books &
evangelise my opinion as is my wont. I wanna be able to donate books & $$ &
other things to the LUG for it's future embarassment :-)


> > 
> One issue at a time, I think might be wise. Leave the IRD thing till
> next time. Going down this path means you're a hop skip and a jump away
> from incorporation, which is something we all voted to avoid last
> time....But it is worth pointing out to those that suggest banking the
> money means the issue of incorporation to deal with issues you raise
> above rears it's head....(does that make sense?). I'll simplify:
> bank=ird=incorporation=voted against last time.
> BTW, I'm happy to be proved wrong on this one..
>  

Um.... I think the ramifications of accepting/not accepting donations need to
be aired & discussed before deciding on this. So the IRD thing should be sorted
out so members can decide on the acceptability of donations fully informed as
the the effect their decision could have on the LUG.

The situation could arise where many members would have voted differently had
they known how much formality their preferred option actually required.
Otherwise, yes, I agree, stick to one core issue at a time.

Brent