Re: [RESULT] Replace the bylaws of Software in the Public Interest

Hi MJ,

Le 19-04-26 à 13 h 44, MJ Ray a écrit :
> Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> That's not a bad idea, but honestly, given the outcome of the recent
>> vote, I too believe that just calling for the same vote again with the
>> call for votes making it VERY clear that there are significant quorum
>> issues with the existing bylaws that make it very important that
>> EVERYONE take time to vote, would likely yield the desired outcome in
>> one step.
> I suspect voter fatigue and feeling that the board was treating the
> result with contempt may make that not so.

"Voter fatigue" normally applies to systems where citizens need to go to
a polling station to vote. I didn't vote very often in SPI votes, but I
don't remember that taking significant time. The significant fatigue
problem here would be if members who voted in the first vote think they
have to make a new decision.

To avoid that, and also to avoid members thinking the result is treated
with contempt, a few elements would be important:
1. Specifying that the proposal is identical to the previous vote (or if
that is not the case, indicating the changes).
2. Specifying that less approvals than 2/3 of contributing members would
mean rejection.
3. Explaining that a second vote is requested because the first vote was
also subject to the necessity in #2, but failed #2.

Another thing important to avoid would be that members who approved in
the first vote decide not to vote in the second vote because they forgot
how they voted the first time. For that, I guess the simplest solutions
would be to tell voters how they voted the first time, or to let as
little time as possible elapse before the second vote.

> It's considered a bad sign to
> just keep repeating a vote unchanged because one doesn't like the
> result, as the UK Prime Minister has discovered to her cost!
>
> [...]
>
> I doubt I'm the only SPI member who felt uninformed and without time
> across the end of the tax year to become properly informed, so I cast
> no vote.

I see that you added your name to a new section on
http://www.philippecloutier.com/SPI+bylaws described as follows:
"Alternatively, add your name to this list if you are a SPI contributing
member who deliberately did not vote on it"

I removed that list since I found the resulting page very unclear, but
feel free to re-add it if you can clarify the distinction between the 2
lists. I suspect you mean that you were aware of the requirement of 2/3
of approvals and still decided you couldn't afford the time needed to
vote properly, but I'm not sure.

>
> Hope that informs,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general