[Noisebridge-discuss] Voting experiment.

[Josh Myer]

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:

> On 09/09/2010 07:11 PM, Josh Myer wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/09/2010 06:27 PM, Ceren Ercen wrote:
> >>> "Many of us are willing to voice
> >>> absent members' concerns during meetings, even if we do not share them"
> >>>
> >>> I think that's not unique to a consensus-style governance. You all
> would
> >> do
> >>> this for each other regardless.
> >>
> >> The importance difference is one of agency.
> >>
> >> With our consensus style discussion, a person is able to effectively
> >> discuss a point and express (a lack of or support for) consensus on
> >> behalf of whoever they proxy.
> >>
> >> It's rare in a voting system to give out extra ballots to people who say
> >> they're representing some other people who aren't at the polling place.
> >> Generally, that defeats the purpose of letting people vote in the first
> >> place...
> >>
> >>
> > I fail to see how this is anything but a benefit.
>
> Some of us don't have the ability to show up to Tuesday meetings?
>
>
I meant the handing out of extra ballots, which this system would
necessarily require.

As they say in Chicago, vote early, vote often!
--
/jbm, who has grown oddly fond of the consensus process
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20100909/62de85d8/attachment-0003.html>