Re: [council] Elections - Open Issues

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>]

Raul Echeberria wrote:
> 
> At 01:13 AM 26/09/1999 +0200, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >As we are approaching the dealine for commenting the elections
> >proposal, I would like lsiting the remaining open issuses (IMHO).
> 
> RE - Sorry, but what was the deadline to make comments about the comments
> sent just before the deadline ?
> 
Raul,

We all agreed to solve the issues relating to the electoral process by
last Friday. This is why we shceduled the teleconf for Thrusday.
The we agreed that instead of having 24 hurs for comments, as
previously agreed, we could extend that to Sunday. This was the final
extension, as we were already far beyond our own agreed schedule.
No one had comneted or sent proposals prior to the teleconf. Nearly no
one commented on Friday (original deadline) Nearly no one (no one, in
fact) commented untl Sunday....
There are NO new comnets. I was just summarising, for the
convenenience of those lost among the ....four or five e-mails in
total, some issues in whcih agreement ws not compeltely clear.
Any way, the clear agreement during the telconf on Thursday that there
was NOT a period for comnets. There was a proposal by Andrew and
Elzbieta based on the telconf discussion. That was to be adopted
UNLESS objections (material objections, of course) were put forward.
Dennis has raised some objections. I have tried to deal with some of
his points.(and I know that now he agrees on the first round with
three votes and subsequent rounds with only one, for instnace. He is
in Poland and having problems sto send e-mail, while he can read
them). Patricio also made comments. So Elzbieta made a new proposal
integrating Patricio's, Dennis' and my comments. 
I highlithed again the issues some people might want to disuss.
As no objections have been expressed, an specific support (vevne if
not needed, according to our prior agreemnt) has been ex`ressed, the
proposal should be deemd adopted )I insist, as we all agreed).

Simple, isn't it? ;-)

> >B) Role of the multiple vote round.
> >
> >This is why no director should be elected thru the first, multiple
> >vote round. Disagreements?
> 
> RE - Yes, I disagree.
> 
This is not enough, Raul. Try to explain how can you elect one
candidate with each member csting three votes (becasue I think you
support multiple votes at lest in the first round). I gave some
expamples about why this is impractical, but you could prove it is wrong.
> >
> >C) Real elctions rond with one vote per member.
> >
> >For the reasons just explained above, all three "rounds" in order to
> >elect the three directors (probably each one consisitn of multiple
> >voteing rounds) should be follwing the "one vote per member" rule.
> 
> RE - I prefer more than one vote, but If only I disagree, let's go with one
> vote each.

I am afaraid it is only one rith now who disagrees. Dennis told me
over the phone that he sees my point about why this is impractical
(again, try to explain how can we select directors one bvy one if we
keep voting three names each NC member.)
> 
> >
> >D) Nominees eliminated.
> >
> >After the inital round, with three votes per NC member, all candidates
> >with no or ultramarginal support are eliminated "for all successive rounds".
> >
> >This imply indeed the nominees with zero votes. But I suggest that
> >those with only one or two votes be also eliminated. More than that
> >would eliminate cnadidats with some chances, perhaps.
> 
> RE - I agree.

Good. Because in fact you and I are the only ones who have expressed a
view on this point ;-)
> 
> >
> >Does everybody agree that a candidate with no support or ultramarginal
> >support be eliminated for the three electoral seats= is "less than
> >two" votes out of the 57 total plausible( ie, no more htan two NC
> >members using one of his/her three votes for a fiven nominee).
> 
> RE - I think there is a mistake here. You should say "..... votes out of
> the 19 total plausible" because as far I understand, nobody could get more
> than 19 votes since each NC member votes three DIFFERENT candidates. Is it
> right ?

Yes, this is the idea. The toal votes cast is 57. The maximum a single
nominee can get is indeed 19, for the reason you point out.
> 
> >
> >E) GD and first round
> >
[...]
> >
> >
> >In clear: if after the first round only nominees form, say, North and
> >Latin America gets at least two votes, but none of the Euroepan, AOP
> >or African candidates gets such minimal support, we go on with the
> >election of the first and then the second candidate, but NOt to the
> >third, as there would NOT be any suitable candidate.,
> >
> >We just fill two seats, and accaept the shame of being forced to a new
> >call for nominations and election for the third deat (whcih will not
> >be in place for LA, I know). But this is still more sound that
> >electing someone without any real support, even minimal.
> >
> >[I know that this is very, ery unlikely to happen, but we are obliged
> >to have a decision beforehand, just in case]
> >
> >Disagreements?
> 
> RE - Why not to try one or two rounds only with candidates from those
> regions that could apply to this seat ?. In this scenario, electing only
> among those candidates, some of them could get a strong support.
> if not, we have to call for nominations and elections again only to fill
> this seat.
> 
It is a choice we have to make. I should insist that a nominee that
gets less than three NC members casting one of their three votes for
him/her is most probably not a candidate the NC should elect. So the
question is: either we put again i nt the ballot all names form every
and each region for each election, after eliminating the nominees form
the directore elected in the previous round, no matter how many votes
they got in the inital round (with multiple votes) or we only take
into account for each and every round the nominees with a minimum of
support. I prefer the second one, for the sake of simplicity and
preventing last.minute bizarre arrangemnets.
> >
> >F) Telecon with nominees
> >
[...]

> >Do you thin kthat we must have such teleconf, or that is is a bad idea
> >given the tight schedule?
> >
> 
> RE - I'm not against to have teleconference with the nominees, but I really
> think that it will not be necessary because I think that nobody will decide
> her/his vote depending on this teleconference.

Most probably true. I thin kthat it could help less popular nominees ,
and operhaps could help orient second and third choices for some
membrs, but you are most probably rightr.

> 
> >G) How we met.
> >
[...]
> >
> >The question now is How we meet and vote meanhwile? My suggeton is
> >that we use a combination of e-mail (during and shortly after the
> >teleconfs) combined with telephone for those not able to send mail at
> >that time (there is always someone at an airport...).
> 
> RE - I prefer "shortly after" and not "during"

Shortly after prevents multpile rounds, as the result cannot be
immediatly communicated and a new balot sent. It all depends on how
many rounds we need, and we have to be prepard to go thru some of them
at leaast for the fist election.

`[...]
> >
> >My proposal for chat, as I have explained is that allows to check who
> >is present (s teleonfs), allows genral discussion (as teleonfs) and
> >also private discussions (unlke telcnfs). Perhaps telconf plus mail is
> >an equivalent...but less coneient in my vew, and much more expensive ;-))
> 
> RE - YES, you are right !
> 
> >
> >Just a question: are all of you familiar with chatting software?
> 
> RE - Yes, I use mIRC.
> 
Venga, hasta pronto.

Amadeu