[Noisebridge-discuss] voting: approval vs condorcet

Jonathan Lassoff jof at thejof.com
Fri Dec 31 04:12:52 UTC 2010


I'd agree with Jim here -- at least from this snippet of our rules, it
says who can and how to vote but it doesn't mention anything about how
those votes are tallied. Consensus is just re-polling until we get a
unanimous vote -- though we're not really using ballots.

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
>   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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list