"Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under
Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors
shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event of a
tie, a teller shall draw lots prior to announcing the result. The
announcement of the results shall include a statement indicating which of
the elected candidates are required to retire at the next Annual General
This is not the spirit of STV/ERS97. The algorithm produces a strict order
of preference (ie. order of election) of the candidates, which we should
use to determine who gets a longer term.
(Ref: ERS97 5.1.7: Considering each candidate in turn in descending order
of their votes, deem elected any candidate whose vote equals or exceeds (a)
If we want to preserve the "approval voting" element of the election, a
"RON" (re-open nomination) candidate may be introduced to the election.
Once RON is declared elected, its place and all subsequent (unfilled)
places are declared re-open.
On 17 September 2012 23:26, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion
and election rules for
Thoughts, questions, suggestions all gratefully received. I'm not at work
tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages.
On 17 September 2012 23:03, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Certainly my sense of the various discussions
over the past 18 months is
that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the current
system. I intend to draft a motion with new election rules for STV; if
anyone has other systems they'd like to put forward I'll be happy to draft
election rules for them.
However, if we have more than two systems to choose between, we then have
to decide which system to choose to decide which system we use...
On 17 September 2012 22:54, rexx <rexx(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
The problem probably lies with the volume of
business on each board
meeting agenda. We're only just keeping up with the business, and as much
as I'd like to see a constructive discussion and a positive decision made
on the future election process, I personally won't find the time in the
near future to organise an EGM.
I'm encouraged by James' offer, and the more volunteers we have who
would be willing to devote some time into defining the parameters for
discussion (maybe a proposer and seconder for a resolution?), or suggesting
possible timescales and venues for an EGM, the easier it gets to fulfil our
commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM.
All contributions are welcome.
On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now that I am no longer in the process of getting
married, I can start
making some progress on this.
On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" <chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org
> > wrote:
>> Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the
>> no: are you confirming there has been no communication/decision on the
>> issue on board level, or do you confirm there will be no such EGM (as far
>> as the board is concerned)?
> There has been no progress. :-)
> Personally I would quite like some progress, and think we ought to use
> STV - it would be great if people could get drafting resolutions.
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list
Wikimedia UK mailing list