[Noisebridge-discuss] voting: approval vs condorcet

[Albert Sweigart]

Technically, our consensus process by itself already violates our
bylaws (which state that we vote):

6.13. Voting

a. Eligibility to Vote
Subject to the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law,
all members in good standing on the record date as determined under
Section 6.15 of these bylaws shall be entitled to vote at any meeting
of members.
Each member entitled to vote may cast one vote on each matter
submitted to a vote of the members. Members may not cumulate votes for
the election of directors.

b. Manner of Voting
Voting may be by voice or by ballot, except that any election of
directors must be by ballot if demanded before the voting begins by
any member at the meeting.

c. Number of Votes
Each member entitled to vote may cast one vote on each matter
submitted to a vote of the members.

d. Approval by Majority Vote
If a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of a majority of the
voting power represented at the meeting, entitled to vote and voting
on any matter, shall be deemed the act of the members unless otherwise
required by the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law or
by the articles of incorporation.


-Al


On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Josh Myer <josh at joshisanerd.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:28 AM, John E <neurofog at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Should we simply have a consensus to confirm candidates to solve this
>> issue?
>
> This might not be allowable by our bylaws (IIRC, the board process is pretty
> traditional because we don't know of anyone else using non-traditional board
> election mechanisms, which may or may not be legally allowable in
> California.  Corporate law FTW.)
> That said, I don't know that we really need to worry about someone getting
> on the board in order to subvert noisebridge.
> --
> /jbm
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>