No subject

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.

linux-aus mailing list
linux-aus at

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">As your third paragraph points out, this current election ca=
nnot be binding, and as noted by the secretary, this is only the first roun=
d of three elections - to determine which candidates should be put forward =
for binding election.</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">The second election will have fewer candidates, and the resu=
lt of that election will be used by the council to determine whether a spec=
ial general meeting should be held. That is to say, none of these online el=
ections have effect on paragraphs 4 onwards.</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">This is just a vote to indicate support for various names, a=
nd as you point out, an subsequent binding election must be held. The timin=
g would require the binding election to be held by the next council. Why no=
t nominate and influence the process yourself?</p>

<p dir=3D"ltr">--Chris</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Sent from a mobile device, whilst mobile.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quot&lt;blockquote class=3D" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 15/12/12 19:23, Chris Neug=
ebauer wrote:<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"
g" target=3D"_blank">
&gt; In the case of multi-candidate elections, such as the election of<br>
&gt; Council members, or the name change vote, the terminating case is not<=
&gt; that a candidate has a majority, but that the number of candidates<br>
&gt; remaining is equal to the number of seats remaining to be filled.<br>
I&#39;m not sure this flowchart is exactly appropriate in this instance, bu=
it does cover most of the process. =A0For example, to change the name at<br=
least 75% of votes cast must support the change, not a simple majority.<br>

More information about the linux-aus mailing list