[AFS3-std] Second Draft of Standardisation Document

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

--On Friday, August 29, 2008 02:25:18 PM -0400 David Boyes 
<dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:

>
>> >> the concept of a single individual with ultimate decision-making
>> > power,
>> >> who
>> >> has both the ability to override any decision made by someone else
> and
>> > the
>> >> inability to pass responsibility on to someone else.  We don't have
>> > anyone
>> >> like that in our organization.
>> >
>> > Yet. People are people, wherever you go. It *will* happen, and it
> needs
>> > to be planned for.
>>
>> I'm sorry, David, but your comment doesn't make any sense to me in the
>> context of this conversation about how to handle ties in chair
> elections.
>
> See quoted comment above my response. You will eventually encounter
> someone who claims those powers, or simply refuses to leave a position
> when it's past time to go -- and is actively harming the organization.
> This organization (or any other, fwiw) is not immune to human nature.

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with election tiebreakers?

If you follow the entire thread, it should be fairly clear that I was not 
saying "we don't have anyone who likes to claim power, so we don't need to 
worry about it"; I was saying "the organization we are setting up has no 
position which has ultimate power or responsibility, and so it does not 
make sense to argue for a particular means of breaking ties based on the 
principal that such a position does or must exist".


Now, if you have read Simon's latest draft and feel it does not have 
adequate safeguards to prevent a power grab, feel free to start a new 
thread on that topic.  But please don't hijack the thread about breaking 
ties in chair elections, because we actually do need to reach a conclusion 
on that question.

-- Jeff