Tue Nov 20 10:27:19 EST 2012
same name, no distribution of preferences can provide the required
support needed to change the name. The flowchart referred to is
deficient in this regard, as is the PHP code to which Anthony Towns
directed me, at
Another deficiency in the flowchart, also relating to keeping the
current name, is that preferences following "no change of name" must not
be distributed, nor may it be eliminated. Allow me to explain in
greater detail: For sake of example, suppose only three choices are
available, "name 1", "name 2" and "no change"; and that first
preferences fall in ratio 40 : 34 : 26. According to the flowchart, "no
change" should be eliminated as the minority candidate; however no new
name can garner 75% support if 26% of voters support no change and
eliminating that candidate with 26% of votes would pervert that truth.
Eliminating "no change" as "last place candidate" would be improper.
Since "no change" must not be eliminated, it follows that preferences
cannot flow from that candidate.
Of course, it must be admitted that this election cannot directly result
in change of name. That may only be done by special resolution, which
requires the text of the proposed resolution to be circulated 21-days
prior to the meeting. What we currently are voting for is to choose the
name that will form the basis of that special resolution. The Council
probably can, should they so choose, eliminate "no change" if it is the
minority candidate, but I argue this would be deceit, as well as
pointless. The point is, members who want to keep the name unchanged
don't need to vote in this election; they need only vote against the
special resolution that necessarily must be proposed. I urge members
who want to keep the current name to vote in this election as a courtesy
to the Council; just as I urge the Council never to treat "no change" as
a minority candidate.
Finally, so as not to disadvantage members who are unable to attend the
AGM, I ask that a postal ballot be conducted, for which a (non-committee
member) returning officer must be appointed.
It is a matter of great disappointment to me that the previous council
mindfully and explicitly chose to discard the old constitution without
including electronic voting at elections in the new one; that provision
had been approved by members (even if the Director General had not yet
been notified.) It cannot be said that this was an oversight as the
point was raised during extended debate. I regret that a postal ballot
will be a significant expense, however the only alternative (under the
new constitution) would disenfranchise a great portion of our members.
More information about the linux-aus