[svlug] Announcement: VP transition - corrections

[Alvin Oga]

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
> membership.
 
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
> ludicrous.
 
:-)

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

c ya
alvin