[NCUC-EC] Conduct of the NCUC Election

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 12:41:15PM +0200, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote:

> 1. Before the BA meeting we have to give Glen a complete list of
> eligible voters, i.e. members "in good standing". Since we don't do
> check in like NCSG (where precision is needed because of
> contestation between constituencies for chair and council seats), I
> guess everyone for whom we have complete contact information at
> http://www.ncuc.org/participate/members/ [assuming this is current]
> is deemed to be in good standing.

Alternatively, since NCUC membership is by definition a subset
of NCSG membership, we could use NCSG's check, i.e., define
an NCUC member to be in good standing if they're so in NCSG.


> 2.  An additional wrinkle is that we have weighted voting.  Under the current bylaws, 
> 
> *Members in good standing with a current membership under 1000
> people, or under 200 employees, shall be called “Small Organizations
> and shall have one vote.
>
> *Members in good standing and with a current membership of 1000 or
> more people or employment of 200 or more employees shall have two
> votes.
>
> These are of course heroic assumptions; how many member orgs do we
> have with membership of 1000 or more people or employment of 200 or
> more? Can't be many.

There're 68 small and 22 large organizations in NCUC member database
at the moment. (One example of a large organization would be Effi
with over 1500 members - although no employees.)

> => Tapani and Wilson, you compiled the members list to subscribe
> people to the new listserv. Do you have a version that includes
> contact details?

Yes (didn't want to put emails in the web lest spammers pick them
from there).

> Does it differentiate between large and small?

Yes.

> => Robin, I believe you did a list for the NCSG election that
> indicates org size/votes? Maybe we should check yours against
> whatever Tapani and Wilson have; even though yours will have NPOCs
> and ineligibles we can pick out and cross check the NCUCers.

We already did that when we rebuilt NCUC member database in the
spring, it shouldn't be too hard to sync them again (and in particular
also mark who's "in good standing").


> 3. That all members are potentially eligible of course poses some
> risk in that folks who are really not following or responding to
> NCUC mail probably won't vote, resulting in a lower than one would
> like turnout.

Yes. And for that reason it'd make even more sense to filter
them by NCSG's "in good standing" check.


> 5.  Again, in light of staff availability and meeting timings etc, I propose we do

> October 21-November 7: Nominations submitted to ncuc-discuss (2 1/2 weeks, negates the IGF distraction)
> November 8-21: Nominees submit statements (BA attendees would have a week prior, and can advance plan, nominations having gone on for weeks before)
> November 22- December 5: Election period
> December 6: Results announced

That should be doable, even though I would prefer to delay nomination
deadline until BA. But if I understand correctly, we don't really have
much leeway in the schedule anyway.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen