william(at)elan.net wrote:
limiting to one month or two month or whatever as johnp for
his own reasons decided to do is not representative of the
community
Sigh. He only did so when you (the collective "you") pressed
him with theoretical questions. Common sense and fair play
work if you only want it. Why on earth should John or anybody
else be interested to exclude somebody, unless it's a fake or
a flood of unknown strangers subscribing to SPF-DISCUSS ?
he had no right to make this choice in the first place as I
tried to tell him.
He has any right to do whatever he likes. You have the right
to start polls. James has the right to publish a SPF pledge.
Meng has the right to co-author draft-lyons. Wayne has the
right to author draft-schlitt. Koen has the right to start a
ticket system. John Glube has the right to sign his letter to
the FTC as "acting chair". I have the right to say RMX when I
mean SPF (gets me some pissed answers from Meng sometimes ;-)
The idea is to support those who actually do something, not to
throw bricks wrapped in RRO.
John should not be doing it himself, he can coordinate but
actual vote should happen on independent media channel.
That's rubbish. If you don't trust John, just say so, and he
will find somebody else to receive about fifty mails, send a
confirmation to the alledged voter, and if that doesn't bounce
or result in a spam complaint it's probably meant as a vote.
If the address or name is known (on Wayne's list) evaluate it,
for 50 votes just do it manually, don't waste time with perl
and Usevote, all scripts and robots are too stupid. Finally
publish the result with a short period for challenges.
If all goes well, and why shouldn't it, that's all, Otherwise
send the evidence to somebody else and let them try to fix it.
the only way to agree to limits is to adapt a charter
That's not the only way. Even the worst system works if you
only want it to work. Even the best system fails if you only
want it to fail. So far we were unable to agree on a simple
draft, therefore we're also unable to agree on a "constitution"
or complex procedures. That's why we wanted this "leadership
council", it's a magic wand, an ersatz-shepherd after Mark had
enough of this kindergarden, or whatever his problem was or is.
I consider restriction based on user's participation on
spf-discuss, i.e. at least one post - to be the most natural
one. Anything more then that severely restricts participation
Fine, and IBTD, Wayne's list for 180 days had quite a lot of
one time posters where it would be difficult to catch forged
votes. But it's the job of the RO to decide where he draws a
line and starts to get very paranoid.
As DynDNS fan I'd be unhappy if Vivien can't vote (2 articles
in 180 days), but as "ex-RO" it's much more important for me to
support the volunteer taking the vote.
4e may well be the best way to conduct future elections, but
the point is that its not they way to do the first election
as we dont have consensus of the community about it
That's a hen and egg case, we want the "leadership" because we
have no consensus. Support the volunteers until they screw up,
don't throw bricks, don't invent hypothetical problems in a
social process. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy if you do it,
therefore just don't. "We" deal with it when it's there, not
before.
Johnp can not make decisions like that on his own.
Of course he can. He can also declare that only users whose
name doesn't contain the letter E have a vote. We're all free
to make fools of ourselves. Just look into Wayne's posting
statistics and you can spot my way.
Bye, Frank