Re to Bruce Eggum: [WDDM] Elections

["Filia den Hollander" <fkdh(at)xs4all.nl>]

That's precisely what I mean !

Thanks, Bruce,
Filia



> I did not see Jiri or Filia or anyone objecting to a secret ballot.
> Bruce
>
> On 5/2/07, <WDDM webmaster> wrote:
> > Hi again!
> >    Since yesterday, we got 3 more votes/opinions on how to conduct WDDM
> > Board
> > elections: 1 on the site for secret ballot (with option to disclose
> > afterwards), and 2 by e-mail for open vote. So it's now 3 votes for open
> > vote,
> > to 4 for secret vote (3.5 for secret and 3.5 for open if you want). So
> > that's
> > no consensus at all. According to the consensus-based simple initial
> > rules
> > I
> > was advocating two years ago at WDDM relaunch, we should now wait and
> > continue
> > discussion until better consensus is reached.
> >    But this charter/board business has been already dragging long
> > enough.
> > So
> > what do you say to the following compromise: Let's use both methods for
> > this
> > election. Those who prefer open vote may send in their vote by e-mail
> > (as
> > Filia
> > and Jiri more or less have already done), and those who prefer the
> > secret
> > ballot could do it on the voting page on the WDDM site (for this hybrid
> > case I
> > would not scramble voter IDs in the voting database to make sure
> > somebody
> > does
> > not vote both by e-mail and on the site).
> >    If you agree with this, no action is needed. You need to reply only
> > if
> > you
> > object a hybrid vote. I'll wait for another day to see if there are any
> > objections.
> >
> >    Mirek
>
>
> --
> Bruce Eggum
> Gresham Wisconsin, USA
> Urge to Surge
> http://tinyurl.com/yndynn
> http://www.doinggovernment.com/
> Check out my Blog too
> http://bruceeggum.blogster.com/