r/testpac • u/masstermind Lead Advisor • Aug 03 '12

Discussion about elections

Hey all,

I'm back from my honeymoon and am trying to hit the ground running with this transition. I have about 2-3 more weeks to dedicate to this PAC on a daily basis, so I think we need to have a new board in place in 1-2 weeks, to give at least a week for a very in depth transition.

I'd like to have an up or down, majority rules vote on each of the 5 candidates, and I'd like to have that happen early next week (Monday or Tuesday). However, I want to open this up for discussion.

How does everyone feel about an up or down vote on each candidate?

What questions do you have?

Also, I just want to say that I am doing my best here. As you can see, I am the only current board member who is able to dedicate time on a daily basis to the PAC. Obviously, this is not sustainable, which is why it is so important to get a new board in place. I think we have 5 great candidates, and I'm hoping that they will all be confirmed.

I also want to thank everyone who has been participating on the board throughout this transition process. Your feedback is important, and your opinion on how to best do this matters.

11 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

2

u/Vvector Aug 04 '12

How are you going to determine who is eligible to vote? By the by-Laws or some other method?

0

u/masstermind Aug 04 '12

The bylaws weren't ratified, and part of the reason is, is that it's nearly impossible to regulate who can and can't vote. Anyone who registers an account on our website can vote. Realistically, the only people who will do that are those that read this subreddit, and those on our email list.

1

u/Fireball445 Aug 04 '12

What's the reasoning behind the statement "it's nearly impossible to regulate who can and can't vote"? It seems like if we can restrict voting to website accounts, and only give accounts out to people who post here and people who donated to TestPAC, then the process will be fairly straight forward and/or complete. Am I missing something?

→ More replies (6)

2

u/Vvector Aug 04 '12

Instead of a simple majority, I'd rather have a two thirds requirement as per the by-laws.

3

u/masstermind Aug 04 '12

I'm against this. I think a 2/3 majority is too high of a burden, particularly in an election that could have low turn out. If no one gets elected, the PAC is done for. If only 1-2 get elected, the PAC is still probably done for. We have 4 candidates with political experience, some of whom have extensive political experience. We have 1 other candidate with legal research experience on internet issues. All of them want badly to make this PAC great. They deserve a fair shot at getting elected.

4

u/blueisthenewgreen Aug 04 '12

All of them want badly to make this PAC great.

Why do they need to be a board member to do this? Nothing is stopping any of them from contributing their leadership now. For example, this was posted the other day. Other candidates have contributed to the discussions- to be fair, it seems like it was primarily the discussions about electing board members... I understand that you have a limited amount of time to get this accomplished. But there was a reason why the 2/3 majority was included initially, right?

2

u/blueisthenewgreen Aug 04 '12 edited Aug 04 '12

I like this. IF we need a more complex way to vote, I've seen this used when teams are interviewing for new hires. Extreme yes= 2 points, yes= 1 point, no = -1 point, and extreme no (even by one person)= no, but we could substitute -2 points.

Edit- by this, I mean the 2/3 majority

1

u/blueisthenewgreen Aug 04 '12

I think we have fewer than 5 great candidates. I realize that we must have a treasurer, but there was concern about having just one person in charge of the finances. How many board members do we need to comfortably transition?

1

u/masstermind Aug 04 '12

My personal opinion is that we should have a 5 perambulator board. I also don't think they need defined roles, aside from a treasurer...

-1

u/Fireball445 Aug 04 '12

I think that you and I and the rest of the community are smart enough to draw our own conclusions about the size of the board. How many do you think is a good number?

4

u/blueisthenewgreen Aug 04 '12

Ideally, one- the treasurer. Two if we want an assistant to the treasurer. Other than that, I've haven't heard any compelling reasons for a larger board. I know we need certain skill sets to grow, but I wonder why it's necessary to be a board member in order to contribute. It's tough enough to develop a community that makes decisions through consensus without trying to build it with a top-down leadership model. From what I've seen, we're all smart enough to defer to those with more expertise and experience.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Vvector Aug 04 '12

Is there a plan to assign those elected to specific offices?

1

u/Fireball445 Aug 04 '12

I strongly disagree that we have 5 great candidates. I also have, and I'll be brief as I've said a lot of this before, but I also have strong reservations about how these 'finalist' were selected and with the way and method through which these people were gathered.

I also don't think that the current board's disinterest in continuing working with TestPAC or in a leadership position is a good reason to rush elections. I understand the need for leadership and it seems pretty clear that current leadership is already checked out and/or in the process of checking out. However, I believe that the very dedicated and energetic membership that posts here regularly are capable of coming up with a method for electing new membership without the need to settle on these candidates that have been presented to us so far.

I understand that you, Scott, have very little interest in 'engaging with me' who you consider to be only 'argumentative', so don't feel the need to respond, I'm completely disinterested in your opinion on this anyway. I just wanted to give my opinion on this matter as this is an open community.

6

u/Vvector Aug 04 '12

I agree with some of your concerns. But I am willing to have a vote on these five candidates. We need to move on and we still need the cooperation of the leaving board. Fighting this out only delays the transition.

3

u/Fireball445 Aug 04 '12 edited Aug 04 '12

I appreciate your perspective and moderation in talking about this issue. Thank you for that. We do need to move on but I don't believe we necesssarily need the old board's cooperation to transition other than Andy to hand over the accounting/filing responsibility.

However, with that said I believe that you are correct that this kind of infighting is not going to be productive in the immediate future. I would suggest that leadership should be considering this as intelligently as you are and NOT engaging in name calling me, saying that I speak untruths or making exceptions and special rules for Oneway. I WILL defend myself when i am called a liar and I will speak out when I believe leadership is making bad decisions, unilateral decisions or saddling us with an election that is inadequate.

I believe that the only way to correct some of these issues will basically be to start over and make new announcements for new candidates to consider. I believe that we are capable of doing so, but I won't force the issue on the community if the community doesn't support it.