[registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots

[Jim Archer]

Elana, do friendly amendments require the approval of all those who 
endorsed it?  If not, can the endorsement be withdrawn?

--On Friday, July 11, 2003 1:50 PM -0400 Elana Broitman 
<ebroitman at register.com> wrote:

>
> Explanation
>
> A number of registrars had expressed a wish for anonymous
> voting in order to protect Constituency members and potentially foster
> greater  voter participation.  The current voting process posts each
> Constituency  member's vote as soon as such member votes.  Please note
> that only Constituency  members (who have passwords to the boardrooms
> site) may view voting results. At the Montreal meeting, we discussed
> several options for changing this process,  including a change to post
> only the collective results rather than individual votes.  On the list
> there was a question about whether or not abstentions may be viewed
> under one of the first 3 proposals.  We will determine that fact prior to
> the vote.
> Motion
>
> Consequently, there is a motion for moving to one of the following
> processes:
> 1. Post only the collective voting results, not individual results, and
> only   at the conclusion of the voting period.
>
> 2. Post only the collective voting results, not individual results,
> during   the entire voting period.
>
> 3. Post individual voting results, but only at the conclusion of the
> voting   period.
>
> 4. Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire voting
>  period.
>
> Process
>
> Pursuant to the Constituency Rules of Procedure, this motion needs to
> have 5  endorsements, and will be put to a vote under the current voting
> procedures  after a 14-day discussion period.  Friendly amendments will
> be accepted and  such changes made to the ballot.  Unfriendly amendments
> will receive a  separate ballot.
>
> Additional Information
>
> In addition to making this change, there was discussion at the Montreal
> meeting about whether or not the Executive Committee should continue to
> manage the voting process.  Apparently, the only way that it is possible
> to  conduct votes through the boardrooms.org site is for the manager of
> the  process (Ex.Com.) to have access to individual votes.  While we do
> not intend  to use such access, the Constituency may wish to delegate
> this task to a third  party that is not a member of the Constituency.
> However, as that would entail  delegation of all boardrooms.org
> management functions, including  membership rolls, passwords, etc., it
> may be a broader change than  anticipated, require hiring of a secretary,
> and/or switching to an alternative  online service.  We plan to
> investigate the options and bring them to the  Constituency for
> consideration in short order.  In the meantime, however, with  important
> votes coming up for the Constituency, we did not want to hold up  the
> consideration of a change in vote posting.
>