05 Aug 1998: Changes to the Voting Procedures
Result of Changes to the Voting Procedures CFV
Author: Robert Felton
Email: swinny@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: 1998/08/05
Forums: uk.net.news.management, uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config
Message-ID: <result-Voting-Procedures-980805-192828@usenet.org.uk>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
Summary: Changes to the voting system
PROPOSAL 1 Accept new proposed wording PASSES 37:3
PROPOASL 2 Accept new paragraph 1 PASSES 37:4
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting closed at 23:59:59 BST, 10 July 1998.
Proponent: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Votetaker: votequestion@swinny.cix.co.uk (Rob Felton)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution:
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.net.news.management
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Results:
The results follow below, with the Rationale and the changes to the
Guidelines beneath them for informational purposes.
PROPOSAL 1 - Accept new proposed wording
YES = 37
NO = 3
ABSTAIN = 2
YES beat NO by a majority of 34 votes, this is more than the +12
majority required to beat the status quo.
PROPOSAL 2 - Accept new paragraph 1
YES = 37
NO = 4
ABSTAIN = 1
YES beat NO by a majority of 33 votes, this is more than the +12
majority required to beat the status quo.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Particulars of the Vote
PROPOSAL
NB Abs = Abstain 1 2
Allan Beetlestone allanatbeetlestone.demon,couk No Yes
Chris Livsey cjlatocrixon.demon,couk Yes Yes
Alex Holden votesatalexh.claranet,couk Yes Yes
Arwel Parry arwelatcartref.demon,couk Yes Yes
Tobias Erle voteaterle.org Yes Yes
Richard Ashton richardatcorixia.demon,couk Yes Yes
Neil Fernandez ncfatborve.demon,couk Abs No
Adrian Wontroba aw1atstade,couk Yes Yes
T F Lee tflatpsp,couk Yes Yes
Dave Sparks Dave.Sparksatsisyphus.demon,couk Yes Yes
Willian Boughton billatxencat.demon,couk Yes Yes
Tim Forcer tmfatecs.soton,acuk Yes Yes
Jonathan Wheeler J.F.Wheeleratrl,acuk Yes Yes
Alex D. Baxter a.baxteratic,acuk Yes Yes
Paul Bolchover pb10003atcus.cam,acuk Yes Yes
Tim Sharrock tjsharrockatiee.org Yes Yes
David Damerell damerellatchiark.greenend.org.uk Yes Yes
Neil Chue Hong npchattardis.ed,acuk Yes Abs
Richard Clayton richardatturnpike.com Yes Yes
Duncan Dewar duncanatdewar.softnet,couk Yes Yes
David M Bloor davidatbloor.demon,couk Yes Yes
Charles Lindsey chlatclw.cs.man,acuk Yes Yes
Barry Johnson bjatcamino.demon,couk Yes Yes
Peter Duck pduckatzetnet,couk Yes Yes
Nigel Thomas nigthomasataol.com Yes Yes
Richard Herring richardatclupeid.demon,couk Yes Yes
Colin Cockerill colincatbtinternet.com Yes Yes
Dave Mayall david.mayallatukonline,couk Yes Yes
Mike Paley pmailkeeatwaverider,couk Abs No
William Tarr newsmasterattarrcity.demon,couk Yes Yes
John Robinson johnatthebeard.demon,couk Yes Yes
Andy Mabbett amabbettatbham-assist.demon,couk Yes Yes
John French kerguelenataltavista.net No No
Fred Barber fredbatfrolix8.demon,couk Yes Yes
Steve Lewin steveatslewin.clara.net Yes Yes
Alex Dawson alexdawsonatbigfoot.com Yes Yes
Simon Gray simonatstar-one.org.uk Yes Yes
Richard Lamont richardatstonix.demon,couk Yes No
Barry Slater barrykasatbo-l,couk No Yes
Jon Harley J.W.Harleyatwarwick,acuk Yes Yes
Claire Speed c.speedatmcc,acuk Yes Yes
Jim Hill jimatjh-c.demon,couk Yes Yes
Invalid Votes
No Name or Address on ballot paper (or both)
Ian Jackson ijacksonatchiark.greenend,orguk
Barry Salter barrykayatbo-l,couk
Michael Parry michaelatunicorn-connection,couk
Pete Humble peetatdircon,couk
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale:
Proposal A: SHALL, SHOULD and MUST
- - ----------------------------------
This proposal is purely cosmetic, and brings the voting document into line
with a similar change made to the Guidelines in April 1997. It does not
actually change the meaning of anything. Note that 1 word in the recently
adopted "ROD" provision also gets changed.
Proposal B: Handling of the CFV
- - -------------------------------
This proposal seeks to clarify the rights and powers of the various
parties involved in a CFV. It curtails somewhat the rights of the
Proponent (which some claim have been abused in the past) without actually
removing his right to formulate his proposal as he wishes. The changes are
as follows:
a) It is clearly stated that the Votetaker acts as the agent of the
Proponent. However, the assemblage of the text is now the responsibility
of the Votetaker, using material (Rationale, Charter, etc) provided by the
Proponent. Note that the original text was the other way around simply in
order to get the Proponent to do most of the work. Now that Votetakers
have well prepared pro formas and wordings (particularly as regards
instructions for voting), it is better that they should be in overall
charge.
b) Any differences between the CFV and the latest RFD must now be "minor".
This can include correction of typos, clarifications of the charter
wording and a revised (but not radically different) alternative name that
arose from the discussion. If there is _any_ doubt as to whether a change
is "minor" then someone (the proponent, the votetaker or Control) must
first clear it with the Committee (but I hope that application of Common
Sense can avoid this in obvious cases). Note that there is no need to wait
until the complete CFV is ready before referral of "doubts" to the
Committee. Time will be saved if this is done in parallel with finalising
the text of the RFD, or even during the final stages of the discussion.
Similar provisions apply if the questions to be voted on are not obvious
from the RFD.
Thus it now is impossible for a Proponent to conduct an "ambush" with some
new name or text that had not been discussed. This does not prevent the
right of the Proponent to determine what is to be voted upon - it merely
forces him to go to a further RFD if he wants to make substantial changes
or to vote on unusual questions.
Note that the wording has been deliberately modelled on that for RFDs in
the Guidelines, so that what is or is not acceptable for a CFV is exactly
that which is or is not acceptable for an RFD.
CHANGES FROM THE SECOND RFD
The text below is identical to that of the 2nd RFD, except that a final
sentence concerning the "status quo" has been added at the end of
paragraph one, to agree with one of the changes in the now adopted Changes
to the Voting System" (with one change of a "must" to a "shall").
Otherwise, the discussion has gone quiet, and these proposals do not seem
controversial.
CHANGES FROM THE FIRST RFD
The paragraph which set forth the duties of the proponent has been
removed. It was unenforceable, and people felt that there might be better
places to say such things.
The CFV must now include a clear statement of differences from the last
RFD (or state that there are none). A further RFD will be required if
these differences are not minor.
A similar provision is made if the questions to be put are not as
envisaged in the latest RFD. Hopefully, this will remove the need for the
"Mandatory Draft CFVs" which have recently been proposed.
PROPOSALS:
Proposal A: SHALL, SHOULD and MUST
- - ----------------------------------
The following text is to be placed at the start of the Voting Procedures.
All occurrences of the word "must" in the Voting Procedures are to be
replaced by the word "shall".
"The following words where used in this document have the precise
meanings shown here:
SHALL - any CFV which fails to follow this guideline will be invalid
SHOULD - in all but exceptional or unusual cases a CFV ought to follow
this guideline
MAY - whilst this guideline is acceptable practice, it remains
optional"
Proposal B: Handling of the CFV
- - -------------------------------
Replace section 1) of the Voting Procedures by the following:
1) If after the discussion following an RFD it becomes necessary to
hold a vote, a call for votes (CFV) shall be formulated by a
member of UKVoting, acting for and in consultation with the
proponent, and mailed to control@usenet.org.uk (as moderator of
uk.net.news.announce). If the CFV is in the correct form (see
below), Control will post it to all those newsgroups and mailing
lists that the latest RFD was posted to.
The CFV shall include
. a summary of the discussion;
. an indication of all differences between the proposal and
the latest RFD (or a statement that there are none);
. the rationale, the name of the group, the newsgroups line
and the charter, as in an RFD; alternative versions of some
or all of these things may be offered;
. the voting instructions and the ballot form.
If differences from the latest RFD have been indicated, any
changes or revised alternatives are required to be minor and to
have arisen directly from the discussion. Moreover, if the
question(s) to be put involve restricted combinations of the
alternatives or other interdependencies, these must have been
specified in the latest RFD. If there is any doubt on these
points, the matter shall be referred to the Committee who may then
require a further RFD to be issued.
The voting instructions and the ballot form shall state clearly
the question(s) to be put, shall include clear instructions on how
to cast a vote, and shall be completely even-handed as regards
voting FOR or AGAINST or ABSTAIN (e.g. there shall be no default
vote). Should a status quo for the proposal exist, the voter shall
be given the opportunity to vote for it, either by voting
explicitly for the status quo or by voting against the proposal.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Votetakers Notes:
This was a simple vote, but it must be stated that some people will never
get used to the Real Name & Email Address being compulsory for a vote to
be valid.
This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on CFVs in
the uk hierarchy. The rules under which this vote is taken are posted
regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the following URL:
ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting
The UKVoting web pages can be found at http://www.cirra.com/ukvoting/
There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted to
uk.net.news.announce.
Allegations of irregularity should be sent to control@usenet.org.uk.
Thanks
Swinny - Rob Felton
Acting Co-Ordinator, UKVoting
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAgUBNciyaGOfGXkh8vHZAQHDRQP+MFeoiuG6OZs8vXoMzraB96UCc1Hb4Y0A
1JEpqDPSyLJn3qbbHbmR2AO4ADDAkPHbH9QdFh1EoX8doYDTouIBwvG3BJzHE5+i
ne3uazIOgLquyDzEMsBLK3g0x2t/CE+zXCiTBxodM/FkBNQxEtfpof08rTbVJ5G1
6BAE1hnZdxk=
=Clsk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
