[Osmf-talk] Possible AoA Amendment #2: Your boss can't force you to vote a certain way

[Michal Migurski]

> On Oct 24, 2020, at 2:28 AM, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 21:48, Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Rory, the AoA already allow us to remove members.
> 
> But importantly, not to annul their votes. So we would find out after
> the election that there was a voting ring, expel all the members, but
> still have to appoint their candidates as board members anyway. That
> hardly seems like a good solution.

A good solution to *what*? One person’s “voting ring” is another’s legitimate interest group of community members.

The problem here is completely made-up and the posts in favor of hastily thrown-together AoA amendments remind me of US Republican Party efforts to stop imaginary voter fraud by limiting very real voting rights. These AoA proposals are being put up after the 90-day membership voting deadline and they are still getting basic logic and proofreading feedback on this list as evidence of how poorly thought-through they are.

I hope you’re excited for acrimonious community debates about the definition of coercion and dueling post-election interpretations of vote counts. I agree with the overall aim of these amendments, but when creating a mechanism for de-legitimizing votes after an election there ought to be a sound definition of legitimacy to work from.

It’s too late and it should have been done differently.

-mike.

----------------------------------------------------------------
michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
sf/ca            http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html