[AFS3-std] chairs?

[Kim Kimball]

I'm quiet, but do follow this.

We either need to legitimize the election, or do it over.  And we need 
to do it now.  Staying in limbo like this is counterproductive and 
undermines credibility.

We're not a club, meeting in a tree house; we're a group of 
professionals trying to be recognized as a standards organization.

We need to set rules and abide by them, lest we be recognized in ways we 
won't enjoy.

Our election rules don't work.

We don't therefore ignore them, we therefore fix them.

Vote counters could be given a fixed period in which to respond -- and 
then, given a quorum of vote counters, the election could be declared 
legitimate.  If there is no quorum of vote counters, then the election 
is not legitimate and must be done over.

Kim



P.S. This is potentially unfair to the currently elected, but I doubt 
the results will change.

I for one will vote for the currently elected, as I consider the 
election legit and don't want the results to change.

Presumably most voters will vote the same way they did before.





On 11/12/2010 8:36 AM, Steve Simmons wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2010, at 11:09 PM, Derrick Brashear wrote:
>
>> Have we declared the election done yet? I understand the desire to do
>> it 'right' the first time, but there comes a point at which we need to
>> move on, and while I don't know when it was, it was.
> If the tentative chairs have no objection, let's have them move ahead on any
> chair-ish business as if the vote had succeeded. The only downsides I see are that nothing they do is official until the vote is formalized, and that there is the small chance the third counter will come up with some different election result.
>
> If David doesn't surface after appropriate nagging, we could punt the issue to the IETF higher-ups for guidance.
>
> We could ask the voters to re-send their votes to a different vote counter. I'd be happy to receive them. With Thomas Kula right down the hall, it would be fast and easy to keep on top of the incoming votes and nag those voters who hadn't re-sent. This assumes, of course, that it doesn't cause the IETF higher-ups to have a conniption.
>
> Should a full re-vote be required, I'd be happy to serve as third counter and would withdraw as candidate. Somehow I doubt the result would be changing in my favor. :-)
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> AFS3-standardization mailing list
> AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
>