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: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----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-----