John Pinkerton wrote:
We already have an "electoral register" It's what was used for the
council elections and is all the people on the mail-lists. We can
bring that up to date as necessary.
Agreed. But by what rules?
I agree, there should be some rules that it should follow when
evaluating candidates and their qualifications. But I also think it
should have fairly strong powers to be able to protect spf community
from takeover and that requires for example being able to not accept
candidate who is not active in SPF Community or has been active only
for very short time.
In cases like this it's not unusual for a candidate to need a minimum
of 5 or so nominations for him/her to be considered. I debated doing
that with the council elections, but it wasn't needed in the end.
I think that would even have been harmful because our community is too
small for that. How many are subscribed to the mailing lists? How many
of those have actively taken part in discussions? How many have actually
voted?
A lot of the 15 candidates might not have received their 5 nominations, so
we could have ended up with having to elect 5 council members from 6 or 7
candidates.
Bear in mind that just because you and a few others want things to go a
certain way doesn't mean that you're representing the views of the
majority. Democracy is a dangerous game - and there really are no
rules that will make things go the way *everyone* wants.
True.
Julian Mehnle.