[svlug] Announcement: VP transition - corrections
alvin at mail.Linux-Consulting.com
Fri Nov 30 15:15:43 PST 2007
hi ya svluggers
> Lisa wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 02:45:09PM -0800, Paul Reiber wrote:
> > Realizing SVLUG's election procedures have varied wildly from
> > online voting some years through shows of hands others, and
> > that there IS no "established method" for voting... do you
> > really feel that appointment is out of the question? Or, are
> > you just chest-puffing to see if it'll get you something?
it has NOT varied ...
candidates announce their willing ness, and maybe make a speech
of why they should be elected, even if running un-opposed
at that same meeting or next meeting, they vote was taken
- people could vote online if they could not attend
in person ... those online votes was very carefully
screened to avoid the same person from voting n-times
the result of the polls ( online ) was made available for all to see
the show of hands was for all to see in the room .. and
everybody got a chance to count ... 3-5 people counted and
agreeded on the numbers
this has NOT changed in all the votings i've seen ..
2004, 2002, 2000, 1998.. etc ...
and there's some prez that was 1 yr term too
> While the procedures have varied from year to year,
it has NOT varied from year to year ..etc..etc
paul/mark announced their candidacy ... and waited for
reed/micah's term to expire before making any changes
> I would say
> that it's a pretty well established president that no office was
> *ever* filled (that I can recall in my 14 years on-and-off of
> membership in SVLUG) by appointment with no call for volunteers
> and/or AT LEAST confirmation of that appointment by the
yup... history and verification in the svlug email archives
will prove all that
i have a full backup of svlug ... including root owned files
since it was a "push backup" instead of pull
but people did have root access, so hopefully, it wasn't
deleted in preparation for a year later to be used as evidence
> > Rick, If you're asserting that there was a specifc vote or
> > decision that no SVLUG office would _ever_ be filled by
> > appointment instead of election, produce the evidence.
> Well, there was also no specific vote or decision that the
> president couldn't set a fire during the meetings... Claiming
> that "there's no rule, therefore it's inherently allowed" is
and similarly... just because everybody is jumping in the
fire doesn't mean everybody else will follow suit either
if somebody says "jump"... i look around and say why, what for,
etc, etc .... a colonel ( navy seals ) told me i'm not gonna
be a good soldier :-) ... not looking to be one either
> > Otherwise, wrong. The past does NOT define the present, nor
> > the future.
> As far as I know, precedents are often accepted as rule in the
> legal system. So, while it's not *definitive* that the past
> defines the present or the future, it's sure a reasonable
> *expectation* that, without good reason to change, it would.
that would hold up in court ...
i dont think anybody is objecting to warren being vp ..
i think what needs to be done is for the vote to happen
online and/or at the svlug meeting
More information about the svlug