I would like to hear from others about this because in election rules
adapted around the world it is always that you're allowed to vote for
yourself.
And in general I will again remind that "not voting for yourself" is a
restriction and we have no right to do it in initial election. It will be
up to the council to decide if community wants these restrictions and
inclusion of these kind of restrictions is exactly the problem I had
with what John originally proposed.
There have been several people who did not have problem with "voting for
yourself" and slightly more who were against it. I'm generally against
this practice but I'll again remind that this is first election and we
really should not be setting up rules that may not have full full support
and should opt for the most open system and let it be hammered for sure
by new council in the future.
I think its best that right now we resolve this by saying that "candidates
are strongly encoraged not to vote for themeselves" and hopefully everyone
running understands that if we see that they did it (and especially if
it made a difference) that this would be looked upon very negatively by
majority of spf community.
There is one other issue that we need to decide on - the case when two
or more people get the same number of votes and one of more of those would
qualify for the council but not all. Typically this is resolved by coin
toss but we cant really do that and I would suggest that the person(s) who
first accepted nomination get to be on the council (i.e. as having slightly
more interest in serving and slightly more active). Please reply if have
strong opinion against doing it this way and preference for something else.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net