Re: [Fsfe-uk] New committee proposal

[ian]

On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 11:11, Jason Clifford wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Alex Hudson wrote:
> 
> > I think it unlikely that we will ever have a completely public voting 
> > system (like I know some other orgs have), but I guess even that could be
> > up for discussion.
> > 
> > > I assume that Ian and Adam are now (or will shortly be) members of the
> > > AFFS committee. I wish them the best of luck with what will surely be a
> > > challenging post.
> > 
> > That is the case. We will of course be saying something officially,
> > hopefully around this time next week. 
> 
> When was the vote? I don't remember seeing anything about it after the AGM
> where it was deferred with a statement that there would be a vote open to
> the membership.
> 
> I know that Marc stated there is no need to have an election if there are
> not more applicants than posts however if the number of applicants == the
> number of posts ( or <= ) how is it that there seems to have been no
> position for Andrew?
> 
> If there were only two positions there should have been an election.
> 
> If there were three positions and Andrew's election to the committee has
> been blocked without any reference to the membership something seems to be
> wrong to me.

I think there are two issues. If there are vacancies and fewer than the
number stand all can be elected without a vote as long as they agree to
stand by the constitution, rules of the group etc. If there is doubt
about anyone standing holding the same values as the group or upholding
the rules, a decision needs to be made but on what criteria? In that
case, if the person signs a declaration to uphold the constitution and
rules, presumably s/he should be elected. If not they aren't. If they
sign and are subsequently found to be in breach of the rules they are
then struck off. If the current constitution and rules do not cover this
then perhaps they should. eg

Rule: Members should not use proprietary software for AFFs business.

(Of course this might well limit the membership so before such a rule
was established the cost-benefit would have to be decided)

Well that's how it seems to work in other organisations and societies. 

-- 
ian <address@hidden>