Re: [Fsfe-uk] Proposed constitution for a UA

[MJ Ray]

Alex Hudson:
> I should have said 'Officers' rather than people; I didn't mean ordinary
> members :) The constitution sections 1, 2 and 15 are invariant to
> modification, I think the behaviour of executive members should be
> invariant against 2, if that makes any sense: being seen to do something
> actively anti any section of 2) should be a kickable offence.

I see what you mean.  How about adding to section 7 a repeat of clause (iv)
as a clause (v) with the first part becoming:

  "(v) works directly against the objects of the association and for good
and sufficient...."

?

> I think we need to define this, then. I still believe a 10% quorum on an
> AGM is wrong; because essentially it would make the AGM impotent. [...]

Ah, I see what you mean.  Would it be better to set an absolute figure as an
alternative, for when things are bigger?

[...]
> leads to the tendency to vote-at-will - we should restrict the number of
> votes per year, or risk low participation.

No matter what you do, if the exec are muppets, they *will* drive the
association onto a sand-bank.  I think we have to rely on their judgement of
the number of votes, in line with any other rules.  I don't think it's a
constitution matter.

[keyrings, shared secrets]
> I think the fact we're somewhat technical and are able to see flaws in
> electronic voting systems shouldn't mean we dismiss them [...]

No, indeed, but is there precedent, or can someone draft a suitable wording
which will allow reasonable e-votes (ugh) to take place?

[STV with Meek's]
> I have no idea what it is; do you have a pointer to a description? :)

I think the ERS has one... the RSS definitely do, somewhere in amongst
www.rss.org.uk should be the paperwork.  I can try to find my copy, too.

Can someone familiar with the program used by ukvoting tell us what the
options are?

> Does it address the problems of unequal suffrage? To be honest, I'm
> happy with any system that is more representative, although I'm not sure
> I see the need for multiple-winner elections (do you have an example?).

Erm, the normal committee officers?  Other particular committees?

> (Everything else seems fine, btw ;)

Here's hoping!
-- 
MJR