[Noisebridge-discuss] voting: approval vs condorcet

[jim]

   i don't think consensus violates the bylaws that 
state that we vote. the bylaws don't say we only 
vote, nor that we don't or can't use a consensus 
process. 



On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 15:40 -0800, Albert Sweigart wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>