[HCoop-Discuss] Bylaws revision - increasing size of board, etc.

[Nathan Kennedy]

>
> "Nathan Kennedy" <ntk at hcoop.net> writes:
>> consider that if a member wants to be deeply involved in policy
>> decisions, then he or she should run for the board.  If that member
>> does not win a board election, then by definition that member is
>> someone whom most members think they would rather not be making
>> policies than those who DO win the board election.
>
> This is certainly true for secret-ballot elections.

I have another dial-up moment here so I don't have time to respond to
everything, I already lost my first reply on this pleistocene-era hardware
and mesozoic-era network.

I'll briefly rehash the reasons why since the very beginning of the co-op
I was for going with open-ballot elections.  I prefer secret ballot, I
don't like open ballot, but I believe it's the best of bad options we have
now.  You are right that some may feel pressured to vote for social
reasons if their vote is recorded publicly, although ultimately
responsibility for the vote lies with the voter.

No voting mechanism is perfect, but secret ballot works best when you mark
it behind a curtain and drop it in a box in public.  What is a worse
scenario--some voters don't vote for who they would rather serve because
they are "ashamed" to do it publicly, or people thinking they have a nice
private vote, and then someone hacking the election and viewing or
tampering with the votes and nobody can ever know about it? Or even
publishing these supposedly secret ballots? You seem especially concerned
about excessive incumbent influence, but keep in mind that incumbents are
also in a unique position to view or tamper with ballots.  We could
outsource the election, but is that what we really want to do? Besides
expense, we would lose control over the process, have to "trust" a third
party to the co-op to do it better than us, and even they could screw it
up.  About the safest way I think we could do it is mailed paper ballot,
but that has a whole host of problems, not to mention the expense and
delay for our far-flung members.

As for S Taylor's concerns, of course others may also be qualified. 
That's why the main purpose here is to increase the size of the board to
allow more people to be involved and each member to have a proportionately
smaller role and power in the reconstituted board.  But relegating the
board's routine operations to be subordinated to minority membership
involvement can often subvert the will of the majority and derail
operations.  There are plenty of safety mechanisms in place for unpopular
board actions that ignore the mandate, including the mailing lists and the
threat of removal, bylaws amendment, and future elections.

-ntk