[Osmf-talk] How to vote to match your view
steggink at steggink.org
Thu Dec 4 16:30:47 UTC 2014
On 4-12-2014 14:00, Gregory Marler wrote:
> This voluntary standing down and resiginations happen each year.
> Voluntary standing down is usually by the longest-standing candidate,
> but resiginations certainly don't help board turnover.
I think it will add a lot towards "transparency" that the longest
standing board member always stands down, and goes for reelection. That
way the shorter standing member(s) has (have) more time to prove
him-/herself in the board. The longest standing member has already had
that time, so if he did a good job, he'll likely be reelected, and if he
did not do that, well, then someone else gets a chance. And what's wrong
with someone doing a good job year after year? If everyone is still
happy with him/her, should he/she not be able to be reelected again?
My other main problem with the current proposal is that it leaves room
for "strategic" planning of GM's where elections can be held. Forgive me
when I'm wrong on the details, but how I see it is that, with the
current proposal, it will be possible to plan a GM when some (unwanted)
board member will be in his 43rd month, so he'll not be able for
reelection. It also can work out the wrong way for someone who has
previously been on the board and seeks reelection. What if the GM is
held in the last month of the period he's not allowed to be reelected?
Then he needs to wait for another year to be candidate again!
And no, please don't tell me this won't happen. We're all humans, and
this is politics, so this will happen sooner or later!
My votes on the first and third resolutions are clear. Not so much on
the second one. Paul recommended to vote "yes" for this resolution,
especially if you dislike term limits, but that sounds like strategic
voting. Can someone explain how this matches with the 75% rule? I think
this proposal should only be brought up when the term limits are being
implemented. Now a minority of only 25% of the electorate (currently 46
people, as of October 2014) have to vote 'no' in order to block this
proposal. On the other hand, this also applies to SR1.
More information about the osmf-talk