[NCUC-EC] Conduct of the NCUC Election

[William Drake]

As I say, we never have, but if you want to chase everyone down to check status, fine by me.  Do bear in mind that people burn out on this sort of stuff so asking for multiple check ins could put some off.  And that the only real reason to do check ins for the NCSG election is they're contested between constituencies; first past the post with whatever numbers was always fine for NCUC.  


On Oct 22, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> On Oct 22 11:14, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 22, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
>>>> November 6 - 19 (Constituency Day): Nominations submitted to ncuc-discuss
>>>> November 20 - December 3: Nominees submit statements
>>> 
>>> I don't quite see why this phase needs to be so long.
>>> Indeed, why not allow nominations all the way up to the deadline
>>> of candidate statements?
> 
>> these have always been separate phases
> 
> Why? - I guess Glen needs the candidate list some time before the
> election for technical reasons, so if that's it, fine.
> 
>> and one would think two weeks is enough. bounds expectations on the
>> field.
> 
> Two weeks should be plenty.
> 
>>> for votes requiring quorum such as bylaws revisions it would be
>>> important to weed out totally passive members.
> 
>> bylaws revisions?  THIS year?
> 
> Of course not, but on general principles such procedures
> should not be created only on the last minute when they're
> about to be needed. So I'd prefer to create the procedures
> sooner rather than later - and when there's an election
> coming, what better time than now.
> 
> But what we seem to be converging is just what I proposed:
> a member is in good standing by one of
> (1) response to our poll in the spring
> (2) response to Robin's NCSG verification request
> (3) response to separate message to the rest
>    I'll send out ASAP.

If you're suggesting that a decision on the above would have required a poll of members, it'd be a year too late. But it doesn't.  Just do remember that per previous people who checked in or not for NCSG had no reason to believe it was linked to their status in NCUC, so 2 must be complemented with 1 and 3.

Thanks

You know, NPOC could use your services too, since you like this stuff.  Maybe you should be CTO for the SG….?
> 
> In the future I'd suggest doing regular (annual)
> verification message (it can be automated almost
> completely) and using that for defining "good standing".
> 
>>> (A minor technical point: the list on the website is "live", generated
>>> from the database, so any new members admitted will appear there
>>> automatically. That also means it isn't stable and using it as
>>> Chair's published voter list could be a bit problematic if we
>>> admit new members during the 30-day period.)
> 
>> So let's not, people shouldn't be able to join and vote less than 30
>> days later anyway. Just freeze it 30 days out.
> 
> Good.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-ec mailing list
> Ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec