[registrars] Discussion stage for balloting procedures, in advance of voting on this issue.

[Paul Westley]

Hi guys,

I endorse the motion to put this issue to a ballot.

Kind regards,

Paul Westley

At 17:48 13/07/03, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
>Dear Registrars:  I have been directed to initiate the 14 day discussion 
>on this issue:
>
>VOTING BALLOT
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>end quote:
>
>Please discuss only this issue with the present Subject thread.
>
>Regards, BobC