board77

As long as the mayor doesn't vote three times it's okay with me.

The reason for me to say, let's get the Mayor to vote first is simply so that later there can be no shadow of a doubt that he/she changed her/his mind later on in the voting process. You know how wild accusations sometimes I can fly. What can happen will happen... I'd rather exclude any possibility of that in the first place.

Right you are, Alandriel.

Jn

I think I could probably cobble together a draft ballot at this point, but I probably won't do so until early next week, after the excitement of the opening dies down a bit.

I like the idea of the mayor voting first - that way the mayor would not really pick their successor in case of a tie, it wouldn't be like we all voted and now it's up to the mayor to make the final decision.
It would be like: we all voted, but in case we can't make up our minds, the mayor's original preference, given long before we all voted, would be chosen.

Hmmh, not sure if that makes sense, but if the Mayor votes first, that's fine with me.

(One question, though - in case of a poll, someone would have to make sure the Mayor voted and note what he or she voted for before anyone else votes - or are we not talking polls at all anymore?)

If we did a poll, maybe the Mayor could PM an admin with her vote just as the poll opened.

Good idea!

I've updated my summary post on the previous page for the new ideas here.

Voronwe, if you want to start working on a ballot, that's more or less in outline form, and the stuff that got thrown out is indicated in italics as obsolete.

http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... rd77#88590

Jn

I have posted a draft ballot. Please comment accordingly.

I would like to vote on this in the next couple of days, depending on how extensive the additional comments are.

Looks good.

I'll try to think of some more constructive comments later.

I think that's pretty constructive.

Well, I'm going to be a pain in the rear.

I like the wording of the individual questions, but the ballot is I think in the wrong order. I think it should cover choosing the committee, selecting the form of the vote, then the timing of the vote, and then dealing with ties. In other words, 5-2-3-4-6-1-7.

I think it's easier to grasp the proposed process as a whole and how one option might affect another if it's in the right order.

Edit: Which is 2-5-3-4-6-1-7, not what I just said.

Hmmm, thinking about Prim's suggestion ... I went back and tried to re-do the order to see what that looks like, and realized that this is not actual text ... for example if we vote that no Ranger need be on the committee, the charter will not say "no ranger need be on the committee," there will simply be an absence of conditions other than what's contained in Q3.

So I'm not sure that the order of the questions matters at this point. I don't care if it is changed, but it was not hard for me to follow in this order. Most of these questions will fold into a single clause.

There is one thing missing though, methinks. Are we going to say when these elections take place? Like, set the date for the first elections, and then subsequent elections will be held the same time of year?

(It is my intention to suggest scheduling the Annual Sacred Lutefisk Ceremony for the month following the installation of the new Mayor so that the very first thing the new Mayor will be called upon to do is hand out noseplugs.)



Jn

Primly, that's not being a pain in the rear, that's easy to do.

That having said, I'm not sure I agree with you.

To me, Question 1 should come first, because it describes what happens first (the "head's up announcement") along with the general process (there was so little debate about this general process that it does make sense to break it up into three separate sections). The committee would not be created until 20 days after that, so it does not make sense to me to me. As to moving Question 5 before 3 and 4, I would not have a problem with that, though to me it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

So 1, 2, 5, 3, 4, 6, 7 would work for me, but I would prefer not to move Question 1 to the back of the list. Of course, if most people seem to agree with Prim, then I will gladly change it.

Jnyusa wrote:

There is one thing missing though, methinks. Are we going to say when these elections take place? Like, set the date for the first elections, and then subsequent elections will be held the same time of year?

I'm sure you noticed that I did add a couple of small details that had not been mentioned previously.

Quote:

A "heads-up announcement" will be given by the current Mayor 30 days before nominations begin, and at least 60 days before the current Mayor's term is scheduled to end.

One change is that I changed "one month" to "30 days" so that it would be the same no matter what month it fell in. The second change is that I specified that the announcement be given by the current Mayor. I suppose that really goes without saying, but it should be said nonetheless. The important addition that I made is the part about it being at least 60 days before the current Mayor's term is scheduled to end. Since the process itself would take 50 days, that would leave at least 10 days between the date the new Mayor is elected and the date she takes office (unless we choose the voting option that would require a separate run-off vote, which assuming it was also for 10 days would make it so that the new Mayor would take over as soon as the run-off ended). But at least we would be guaranteed of avoiding a situation where the current Mayor's term has ended and there is no one ready to take over.

For the first election, my thinking is that as soon as we have voted on this and it has been ratified by the membership, the honorary Mayor (whoever that is) would be able to give the "head's up announcement" as soon thereafter as she chooses.

Cool!

I think we should try to project when this will be, though, and target a month, for example, in which elections are intended to be held. Looks like that would be September or October. Could we shoot for September 22 as inauguration day? (Or is that too twee?)

Jn

I'm still thinking about the format of the vote so I'll leave off commenting on that for now other than to mention that I'm not sure I'm happy with the options. Need to think.

However, I do think this needs rewording:

Quote:

C. One Ranger will assigned to the committee as a "non-voting member" to handle things requiring the administrative panel (in addition to the three "voting members" of the committee).

I think it's confusing because none of the committee actually votes on anything; they just facilitate the process. To specify one as a 'non-voting' member wrongly implies that the others somehow ARE voting members.

May I suggest:

Quote:

C. One Ranger will assigned to the three-person committee but will not participate in committee proceedings other than to make him/herself easily available to the committee to facilitate processes requiring access to the administrative panel

This clarifies that the Ranger serves the committee without being part of it and removes any possible confusion about voting and non-voting members when there is nothing to actually vote on.

Jnyusa wrote:

Cool!

I think we should try to project when this will be, though, and target a month, for example, in which elections are intended to be held. Looks like that would be September or October. Could we shoot for September 22 as inauguration day? (Or is that too twee?)

Jn

I think that is purely up to the honorary Mayor. But I would absolutely love it if that could be the date.

Imp, I was wondering who was going to say that. I used that terminology because that was how it was suggested, but I agree that it is not particularly accurate. The voting or non-voting designation would only come into play if we chose to have the committee resolve ties.

I'm going to adopt your wording with nary a change.

I have a question on Question 3. People selected for the committee may not think that they will be nominated. What if they are and they want to accept? This is probably too late, but could there be an alternate, in case one of the original members has to leave or decides to accept a nomination?

Or perhaps the question could be worded differently: Instead of

Quote:

the member is not eligible to be on the committee

perhaps "The member must turn down any nominations" or "The member is not eligible to be Mayor."

Just a belated thought.

Re non-voting member - Imp is right. That was my terminology and it should be reworded.

Jn