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> 




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)

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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 

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

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.


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


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.


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 

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:

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

Allegations of irregularity should be sent to control@usenet.org.uk.


Swinny - Rob Felton
Acting Co-Ordinator, UKVoting

Version: 2.6


You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage