<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi MJ,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 19-04-26 à 13 h 44, MJ Ray a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190426184456.2e08db16@bletchley.towers.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Bdale Garbee <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bdale@gag.com"><bdale@gag.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">That's not a bad idea, but honestly, given the outcome of the recent
vote, I too believe that just calling for the same vote again with the
call for votes making it VERY clear that there are significant quorum
issues with the existing bylaws that make it very important that
EVERYONE take time to vote, would likely yield the desired outcome in
one step.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I suspect voter fatigue and feeling that the board was treating the
result with contempt may make that not so.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"Voter fatigue" normally applies to systems where citizens need
to go to a polling station to vote. I didn't vote very often in
SPI votes, but I don't remember that taking significant time. The
significant fatigue problem here would be if members who voted in
the first vote think they have to make a new decision.<br>
</p>
<p>To avoid that, and also to avoid members thinking the result is
treated with contempt, a few elements would be important:<br>
1. Specifying that the proposal is identical to the previous vote
(or if that is not the case, indicating the changes).<br>
2. Specifying that less approvals than 2/3 of contributing members
would mean rejection.<br>
3. Explaining that a second vote is requested because the first
vote was also subject to the necessity in #2, but failed #2.<br>
</p>
<p>Another thing important to avoid would be that members who
approved in the first vote decide not to vote in the second vote
because they forgot how they voted the first time. For that, I
guess the simplest solutions would be to tell voters how they
voted the first time, or to let as little time as possible elapse
before the second vote.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190426184456.2e08db16@bletchley.towers.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It's considered a bad sign to
just keep repeating a vote unchanged because one doesn't like the
result, as the UK Prime Minister has discovered to her cost!</pre>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190426184456.2e08db16@bletchley.towers.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
[...]
I doubt I'm the only SPI member who felt uninformed and without time
across the end of the tax year to become properly informed, so I cast
no vote.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I see that you added your name to a new section on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.philippecloutier.com/SPI+bylaws">http://www.philippecloutier.com/SPI+bylaws</a> described as follows:
"Alternatively, add your name to this list if you are a SPI
contributing member who deliberately did not vote on it"</p>
<p>I removed that list since I found the resulting page very
unclear, but feel free to re-add it if you can clarify the
distinction between the 2 lists. I suspect you mean that you were
aware of the requirement of 2/3 of approvals and still decided you
couldn't afford the time needed to vote properly, but I'm not
sure.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20190426184456.2e08db16@bletchley.towers.org.uk">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Hope that informs,
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org">Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general">http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>