Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

WC2 : The voting goes on

The other thread kind of got derailed, so I'm posting my new reminder as a new thread. Voting is open until tomorrow night (Sunday, June 1) so get your say on approving the first Council of Wondercafe2. The slate is right on the ballot or in the OP of the thread where we announced the vote:

 

http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/church-life/wc2-we-can-has-council-y...

 

Mendalla

 

Share this

Comments

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

And the "polling station" is here:

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Wondercafe2CouncilSlate

 

Mendalla

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

I have some thoughts and questions regarding this voting process.

 

First, it is a vote for or against a selected slate.  What , then, is the purpose of a vote?  People are nominated, no second process required, and then a selection process by Council ensues - and a slate is provided.  

 

What happens if the votes received is overwhelmingly negative?

 

There has been no presentation by the owners/first Council members/admins as how that would be addressed. Nor need it be - as outlined in how WC2 is governed, Council makes the decisions, which is fair enough, as Council owns the site.

 

And, since the outlined requirement to operate five moderators and a start up Council, with no defined length of service, voting seems a bit odd.

 

Vote for all - or no one.

 

It is not a democratic process.

 

It seems to me that a vote does not matter - because those who may cast a vote while being a member of WC may not become a member of WC2.

 

Five moderators required, five moderators listed, and no way to elect by voting.

 

So what is the purpose of a vote?

 

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

It is a vote to confirm the slate nominated from the community and listed in the original post of the thread that I linked. Read that original post and the Council document. If you don't understand it or don't like the process, don't vote. I am not going to try to explain it all to you again given that we've had this discussion when the Council format was approved and in the nomination thread..

 

Mendalla

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Fair enough.

 

If the vote does not confirm; what is the process?

 

And, for the record, I have read everything very carefully.

redhead's picture

redhead

image

For the record, Council format cannot be voted against, as Council members own the new site.

 

So it is obvious that a voting process does not have any influence on how WC2 proceeds.

 

It is fair enough and correct that those who pay  for and operate a new site have control; it is ridiculous to present it as a democratic site where voting has an impact.

 

Presenting a selected slate, with no democratic election process is not an elective process.

redhead's picture

redhead

image

And to be fair, Mendalla, you did not answer directly any of the questions I presented.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

We had more nominees than required so a new nomination process to get a new slate will be possible.

 

At this point, redhead, we are not discussing the process any further. The process that we are following was overwhelmingly approved by the community (27 of 33 votes cast were in favour) when we voted on the Council format. Once the Council is in place and WC2 is up, Council will take any initiatives needed to further develop and refine the process and there will be a forum for discussion of WC2 business where you would be able to open a thread to discuss how you would like to see things change.

 

Mendalla

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Council has to be approved by no one.  Council consists of the owners/admins of WC2.

 

The entire approval voting process is not elective, nor is it democratic.

 

So the question remains: what is the purpose of voting for a slate of selected people?

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Is this Groundhog Day?

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

redhead wrote:

Council has to be approved by no one.  Council consists of the owners/admins of WC2.

 

The entire approval voting process is not elective, nor is it democratic.

 

So the question remains: what is the purpose of voting for a slate of selected people?

 

Agreed, it is not elective, but it is the process that was approved by the community so it stands until a change is made and we are following it. No further discussion of process is needed at this time.

 

And no, it does not consist of the owners/admins. Look at the slate, redhead. There are now 5 moderators who each have equal say with the three of us in the governance of the site. In fact, we are now the minority on the council.

 

Mendalla

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Answer the questions and it will no longer be Groundhog Day.

redhead's picture

redhead

image

"To form Council, the community is asked for nominations.  After a suitable nomination period of not less than 5 days, the nominations are closed and Council selects new members from the nominations. For purposes of the initial Council, the three founding administrators shall perform the selection.

Council members shall be polled annually to determine if they wish to stay in their current role so that vacancies can be declared and nominations sought to replace them. 

If at any time a council member is unable to fulfill their duties, they may step down or may be removed by the council. New nominations shall be requested to fill the vacancy.

The first point I make is this, and for those who missed it on previous threads:

"For purposes of the initial Council, the three founding administrators shall perform the selection.  Council members shall be polled annually to determineif they wish to stay in their current roll..."

 

Polling Council members is not an elective process.  Nor is it a process I have been involved with in not for profit organisations, Charitable orgnisations, committees, or even condominium boards - all of which have set terms and responsibilities - that said, the current Council members own the site and have every right to define terms and govern accordingly.  Polling within Council is not democratic, although it appears such on the surface.

 

Most board memberships have  determined timeline - and internal polling is not prt of the process.  In this cse, WC2 Council/owners/admins of WC2 have outlined the process, again, which is fair enough, but it does not involve an active, democratic, election or voting process.

 

And if I am incorrect in my understanding, then please explin specifically where my comprehension is incorrect, Mendalla and chansen.

 

 

 

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Mendalla, it clearly does consist of the owner/admins/Council.

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

redhead, you're right - the process is neither truly democratic nor elective - the site owners could put in as leaders whomever they desire.

What the Admins have chosen to do is to care about the community and to seek our counsel. They didn't have to do that. It is quite honorable that they did.

They are also wise. As they want WC2 to be successful, they want to put leaders in place whom the community-at-large trusts and has confidence in.

So redhead, you're right, they could have just put in anyone.
They have chosen to do far better than that.

Rich blessings

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

redhead wrote:

Mendalla, it clearly does consist of the owner/admins/Council.

 

Did you read what you posted? We are acting as Council only for purposes of nominating a slate for this vote. Once this slate is confirmed, then that slate becomes the Council. So, as of Monday, we will no longer be the Council, we will be 3 members of the Council that will also include the 5 mods.

 

Anyway, I have stayed here longer than intended. The vote is proceeding according to the requirements and there is no further need to discuss it. I have an ACM to go to that is going to be unpleasant, I suspect. Have a good day, folks.

 

Mendalla

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Ah, if there were more than five moderators nominated (and accepted) by community, and all were listed and then elected by voting by community - that would show care, concern, and community involvement.

 

Voting on a selelcted slate is a very different story.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Redhead, you don't like our answers. You don't agree with what we're doing. We did not set up a democracy. We explained why - online forums run by democracy almost universally suffer because of it. Pinga, Mendalla and I have all been part of the staff of online communities before. We know what works, and what doesn't. We also read about the experiences of more communities, and forum owners and admins all said that experiments with democratic elections for admins and mods went poorly, because it turns the forum into a popularity contest and often the popular member is not a good decision maker or technically competent.

 

We acknowledge your disapproval and we are going ahead anyway.

 

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

redhead wrote:

Ah, if there were more than five moderators nominated (and accepted) by community, and all were listed and then elected by voting by community - that would show care, concern, and community involvement.

 

Voting on a selelcted slate is a very different story.

 

Except that is not the process that was approved so until the process is changed (which is NOT the topic at hand) we follow that process. Council and the community can change that process but not until we have a Council.

 

Mendalla

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

The next problem with Council design is that moderators are part of Council.  Moderators should be an arm's length, neutral entity.

 

Hence the definition of moderation and moderator.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

redhead wrote:

Ah, if there were more than five moderators nominated (and accepted) by community, and all were listed and then elected by voting by community - that would show care, concern, and community involvement.

 

Voting on a selelcted slate is a very different story.

As an atheist, I am impressed by your lack of faith.

 

The five people chosen among those nominated are people we thought we could work with, who represented some diverse views and theology, and would make good decisions.

 

Imagine what would happen if mods were elected. The five who are most popular with the largest group of friends get in.

 

Of those nominated, they are not necessarily the five people I would choose to hang out with for an afternoon. If I were to choose the five people I agree most often with, the slate of moderators would look much different. Same with Pinga and Mendalla. Hell, I often disagree with Pinga. But we can work together and come to agreements.

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

redhead wrote:

The next problem with Council design is that moderators are part of Council.  Moderators should be an arm's length, neutral entity.

 

Hence the definition of moderation and moderator.

Damn, every online forum is doing it wrong. Now we have to shut down the Internet and restart it again.

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Thank you, chnsen, for being direct.

 

So, WC2 is not democrtic.  Fair enough.

 

That also means that voting does not really matter, since voting is, essentailly a democratic process.

 

Thank you for answering my primary question.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Yep, we're dictators. Oh, and piranhas. Imagine a small school of piranhas wearing military hats. That's us.

 

This lack of democratic elections was discussed at length some time ago. I think you've disagreed with so much of what we've done that you can't remember what you've already disagreed with.

 

Maybe keep a record book of reasons why we suck?

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Not so, Chansen.  It is very clear.  Hope anyone who reads this thread understands clearly that voting does not have any positive or negative impact on how and who operates WC2.

Alex's picture

Alex

image

Whatevr you believe redhead, please do not unilaterally  ascribe ownership to the council.  The council operates WC2 on behalf of the WC2 community.

 

So in effect ownership lies with evryone who plays and active  part of the community.  It is certainly a step forward from the operation/ownership model of WC1.  It also saves the board from pricing itslef out of business, as it requires no paid staff.

 

WC2 has a process where 80% can change the rules regarding the operation of the site.   I am sure that over the next few years there will be plenty of time to make changes if the WC2 community finds that the board is not to their liking.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

It's a vote of confidence in the slate chosen. Some people are going to have a problem with the slate. Some are going to say it's good enough for them. If we've really misjudged, it will come out in the vote. So the vote does matter, because if positive - and they've all been at least 80% positive thus far - it shows that we have the support of a very diverse community. That's difficult to achieve in a place like this.

 

You don't like it. We understand. We'll just have to shoulder the burden of your disappointment.

 

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

First, while I understand what redhead is saying, Mendalla has it right - the community had the chance to vote on the process and voted to approve it. In that sense, case closed. Redhead doesn't like the process. Tough. It was approved. I don't care for Stephen Harper. Equally tough. He's the PM.

 

However, I do understand redhead's point. Since I'm not concerned about a secret ballot - it's why I voted "no"  to the slate. Not a reflection on any of the individuals on it, but because I think the admin team should have just named the first five moderators, and then worried about refining the process. Voting on a slate without knowing what alternatives there were is an invitation to rubber stamp something. So, wanting to be disagreeable, I voted "no."

 

But I was disagreeable in a friendly way. Even charming. Cause that's what I'm about. Friendly and charming. Devilishly handsome too, but that goes without saying.

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Please show where and how an 80% vote is calculated - or matters in how governance will proceed.  If I missed it,sorry - various threads and a lot of information -posting in blogs and blog links not always so helpful either.  Moving from thread to thread and to blog for information is not easy navigation, however I do understand limitations of technology and reasons for posting.

 

It would really help you case, Chansen, if you would cut the sarcasm and calmly,reasonably, acknowledge any questions and issues that I have posted.

 

Upthread, you acknowledged that this is not a democratic process - and that was my major concern - hence voting does not matter.

 

Any continual attack against me personally, reflects poorly upon you - a very bad form, for anyone familiar with dialogue, disputation/debate will understand, attacking an individual instead of addressing the issue(s) presented is poor form.

 

And Alex, you are incorrect in your opening statement.

 

The three Council members own the site, are designated members, and can operate WC2 as they think best - with or without how potential members cast votes.  Alex: Pinga, chansen and Mendalla OWN the site.

redhead's picture

redhead

image

How does voting influence, in anway, how WC2 will operate?

 

And should moderators be part of Council - how does that affect neutrality?

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

redhead wrote:

Please show where and how an 80% vote is calculated - or matters in how governance will proceed.  If I missed it,sorry - various threads and a lot of information -posting in blogs and blog links not always so helpful either.  Moving from thread to thread and to blog for information is not easy navigation, however I do understand limitations of technology and reasons for posting.

 

It would really help you case, Chansen, if you would cut the sarcasm and calmly,reasonably, acknowledge any questions and issues that I have posted.

 

Upthread, you acknowledged that this is not a democratic process - and that was my major concern - hence voting does not matter.

 

Any continual attack against me personally, reflects poorly upon you - a very bad form, for anyone familiar with dialogue, disputation/debate will understand, attacking an individual instead of addressing the issue(s) presented is poor form.

 

And Alex, you are incorrect in your opening statement.

 

The three Council members own the site, are designated members, and can operate WC2 as they think best - with or without how potential members cast votes.  Alex: Pinga, chansen and Mendalla OWN the site.

Okay, so they own the site. We then each have to choose whether or not we want to be members of a site owned by them.

If you want to own a site, you can too redhead. There are even some websites where you can start your own forum for free.

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

You know, the Mods have much patience & tolerence and if I were them , I would probably throw up my hands , quit and say "****".

 

So , Thank you to them.

 

And to let you know that I too, like Rev Steven , am friendly and charming and heartless (not devishly handsome)

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

redhead wrote:

The three Council members own the site, are designated members, and can operate WC2 as they think best - with or without how potential members cast votes.  Alex: Pinga, chansen and Mendalla OWN the site.

 

That's true, redhead, which is why it was respectful of them to seek the community's input and legitimate for them to select among the nominees who they thought was most qualified. I just would have preferred that the rubber stamp vote be avoided as it was unnecessary.

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

Mods don't have to be neutral.

The Wondercafe mods, who work for the UCCanada, make decisions with the best interests of the UCCanada in mind.

The mod of the internet forum I used to be a reg on before it closed down, CITY-TV's Da New Stuff, was an employee of CITY-TV and made decisions with the best interests of CITY-TV in mind.

The mods of Wondercafe2 should make decisions with the best interests of Wondercafe2 in mind.

Rich blessings.

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Actually, moderators do have to be neutral - that is inherent in the definition.

 

"The five people chosen among those nominated are people we thought we could work with, who represented some diverse views and theology, and would make good decisions."

 

Selected by Council.  Other nominees eliminated. How is that a process by community  elected?

 

Just stating the obvious.

 

Voting upon a pre-determined slate does not in any way represent care - it is already a done deal. 

 

Five mods selected (those who Council could "work with"), five mods required, and no way to vote democratically.  Guessing all is clear.

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

redhead wrote:

Actually, moderators do have to be neutral - that is inherent in the definition.

 

"The five people chosen among those nominated are people we thought we could work with, who represented some diverse views and theology, and would make good decisions."

 

Selected by Council.  Other nominees eliminated. How is that a process by community  elected?

 

Just stating the obvious.

 

Voting upon a pre-determined slate does not in any way represent care - it is already a done deal. 

 

Five mods selected (those who Council could "work with"), five mods required, and no way to vote democratically.  Guessing all is clear.

One of the definitions for moderator in Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary is, "b: the non-partisan presiding officer of a town meeting"

Is Wondercafe2 a town meeting?

The other definitions given say nothing about the moderator needing to be impartial.

As for how the WC2 moderators were chosen, what would you have us nonmoderators do? Sing the blues? Cry over what you perceive to be spilled milk?

Rich blessings.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Redhead, I do not feel that I own the site. All three of could resign at this point and hand the admin keys to the mod team (well, once we have trained at least one or two of them on doing the admin jobs). The site is up and running, the bills are paid, and our role going forward is mostly helping the mods and dealing with stuff that's above their level (spam blocking, adding new forums, manually creating users, and so on). If the mods outvote the admins on something, then that's how it goes. We didn't plan to be a triumvirate forever, only until there was a governance structure in place. Sure, I paid the bill for the first year of software but I registered it to a generic admin account so that I could hand the password to over to a new admin or the chair of council or whoever was going to look after the renewals going forward. That's hardly ownership as I understand it.

 

Mendalla

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Thanks, Mendalla, that is good to know.

 

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

redhead wrote:

Please show where and how an 80% vote is calculated

[number of yes votes] / [total number of votes cast] * 100 >= 80

 

redhead wrote:

- or matters in how governance will proceed.  If I missed it,sorry - various threads and a lot of information -posting in blogs and blog links not always so helpful either.  Moving from thread to thread and to blog for information is not easy navigation, however I do understand limitations of technology and reasons for posting.

I don't think you missed it. I'm pretty sure you were able to complain about each step along the way.

 

redhead wrote:

It would really help you case, Chansen, if you would cut the sarcasm and calmly,reasonably, acknowledge any questions and issues that I have posted.

I think I've made my case. You've been catastrophically incorrect or held opinions that go against those of every community forum owner and admin I've known or read about, every step of the way. It's uncanny. If we took your advice on every decision and then did the exact opposite, I think things would be going even smoother.

 

redhead wrote:

Upthread, you acknowledged that this is not a democratic process - and that was my major concern - hence voting does not matter.

It does, we've explained why, but don't let that effect you.

 

redhead wrote:

Any continual attack against me personally, reflects poorly upon you - a very bad form, for anyone familiar with dialogue, disputation/debate will understand, attacking an individual instead of addressing the issue(s) presented is poor form.

I'm deeply concerned. Tell me more about how I suck.

 

redhead wrote:

And Alex, you are incorrect in your opening statement.

 

The three Council members own the site, are designated members, and can operate WC2 as they think best - with or without how potential members cast votes.  Alex: Pinga, chansen and Mendalla OWN the site.

Pretty much. Someone has to own the domain and the hosting account. There has to be a level of trust there. We're looking for help and input from members to be mods and treasurer. The popular experience of opening a forum to full democracy is that infighting occurs and it becomes a popularity contest. This sort of move has destroyed other communities.

 

We put the site together. I think we're good people with good intentions, and I think most here would agree. Yes, we hold the keys, but like WC1, no one is being invoiced for dues, despite arguing with you over that point all winter. We aren't going to make much, if any ad revenue, and certainly not enough to cover expenses. We need the goodwill and support of the community to continue.

 

I don't mind constructive criticism, but you don't offer that. I see you as a human roadblock to getting this site up, and after all these months, I've decided not to take you seriously. If I did, I'd be frustrated beyond words right now and I'd probably have quit. These posts are my release.

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Mendalla wrote:

Redhead, I do not feel that I own the site. All three of could resign at this point and hand the admin keys to the mod team (well, once we have trained at least one or two of them on doing the admin jobs).

Absolutely. I will not hoard whatever is in my name here. I want to pass the hosting account along to someone else. More desperately every day.

 

But for now, yes, the three of us "own" the site. There is no more accurate way to put it. I don't feel like I own it, I wouldn't list it among my assets to the bank, but my name is on the hosting account. For now.

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Good to know that you find release, chansen.

 

 

 

I am someone who is able to analyse how WC2 operates, and to point out that voting, at the end of the day, does not really matter.

 

That is clear.

 

It is not negative: it is fact.

 

How and who operates WC2 is in the hands of those who own it, nd how the operating of WC2 isa designed.

And that is a very fair assessment.

 

I never stated that anyone who owns WC2 is not a good person.  I merely pointed out the obvious: voting does not matter within a potential community, especially when there is  selection process, rather than an election process.  Really, what is the point?

 

The slate is clear.  Voting will not chnge how WC2 moves forward- especially in light of an Invitation to pre-register thread.

 

WC2 will be up and running, with a Council and moderators, regardless of current WC voters.  And that is fair enough.

 

I simply do not see, in any thread, or in any way, how voting matters - and because of that, I suggest that it is insincere to seek such  vote - and that votes cast are not necessary, required, or will influence how WC2 operates.

 

 

 

 

gecko46's picture

gecko46

image

What if the "yes" percentage was only 50% or less than 50%?

 

Wouldn't that indicate that perhaps the slate of moderators deserved a closer look?

 

 

 

 

 

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

crazyheart wrote:

You know, the Mods have much patience & tolerence and if I were them , I would probably throw up my hands , quit and say "****".

 

So , Thank you to them.

 

 

We don't have mods yet devil

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

redhead wrote:

I never stated that anyone who owns WC2 is not a good person.  I merely pointed out the obvious: voting does not matter within a potential community, especially when there is  selection process, rather than an election process.  Really, what is the point?

 

The point is to ensure the community is overall happy with the council.  Voting in the top 5 people for mod isn't necessarily the best thing.  Even if the votes picked 5 people who would be the best at modding, that doesn't mean it's the best mod team.  It's useful to have people who frequent the site at different times.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

What has pre-registration have to do with this vote?

 

We can set up the accounts and hold for a month or two while we wait for the process to be done.  If the vote wasn't clear, then yes, we would need to figure it out who would be better or more acceptable.  Kind like having a hung jury, we would have to igure it out

 

Seriously, so far the community has

a) figured out a name for the site

b) offered funds to help set up the site

c) determined who we are

d) determined other key documentation

e) and the list goes on

 

We have done it with the community working together .  This was not a requirement for our starting the site, but, it was important to us.

 

It is too bad that this thread is being taken off line.  

 

It really was for those who have been following along to make a vote.

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi redhead,

 

redhead wrote:

It is not a democratic process.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

Democracy is defined as:

Dictionary.com wrote:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

 

2. a state having such a form of government:  The United States and Canada are democracies.

 

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

 

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

 

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

 

At all steps along the way the construction of Wondercafe2 has been, at the very least collaborative.  When we entered into negotiations with the United Church of Canada on the possibility of a successor site we needed folk with the technical expertise to carry out those discussions.  

 

True, there was no election of Pinga, Chansen or Mendalla.  I remember no objections to their carrying out those conversations on our behalf.  At the very least there was general consensus among WonderCafe members that these three should do that work.

 

When it became obvious that the United Church of Canada really had no vision for continuing the idea of an independant successor site was discussed and these three agreed to look into the technical end of the matter.  Again, it would appear that there were no objections to them doing so and no vote was taken in the understanding that the general membership consented to them taking on this task.

 

With the technical details more or less secured the Wondercafe2 admin presented the general membership with the ground rules for the new site.  All all points consultation was had and before any document was put into place a vote was called for.

 

True, the choice for most votes was yea or nay.  That still represents a choice.

 

Finally we came to the elections for the Council.

 

Nominations were called for and nominations were recieved.

 

A slate was produced by the three admins and voted on by the interested membership here at wondercafe.ca.  Again, the choice was limited to yea or nay.  That still represents a choice.

 

Now, we don't know what would have happened had any particular vote failed because we have not actually seen any vote fail.

 

At any rate I think that the consultation, consensus and voting which have happened indicate that the process has been democratic in the sense that everyone has had an opportunity to participate even to disagree with decisions made along the way.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Thanks revjohn.

redhead's picture

redhead

image

RevJohn, thank you for a thoughtful reply.

 

I will point out the following regarding a demcratic process, of which, voting is paramount.

 

Casting a vote matters in the outcome.

 

In this specific case, casting a vote for a slate of selected people does not matter 0 the selection made, so casting votes does not matter.

 

Neither does voting in future WC2 structure,as it is set out.  Polling to remain seated on Council, and the selection process, and then a vote upon a pre-selected slate: in no way is that democratic. 

 

A vote, in this way, is rather like a poll of popularity.

 

And forgive me if I hve missed this, but I have not read where a voting process elects anyone in WC2.  Voting, through an election process, seems to be a primary element of a democratic process.

 

I have no prbolem with how WC2 will operate.

 

I do have a problem with presenting WC2 as operating under a democratic process.  It is not democratic, and voting does not matter.  I have never read, on any thread regarding WC2, how voting and the results of votes would, in any way, influence how and who operates WC2.

 

And if I have missed that information, I welcome the information and apologise in advance if I have misunderstood, in any way, 1)how voting matters,and 2) how this is a democratic process.

redhead's picture

redhead

image

And for the record, casting a vote of yea or nay is not a reflection of who is listed on the slate, rather how one can cast a vote - so if the voting process is flawed, then each person will have to determine voting about the system, or for people.  And ironically, the vote, at the end of day, also does not matter.

 

WC2 will move forward, regardless of a vote.  And that is truly a  good thing.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

redhead wrote:

RevJohn, thank you for a thoughtful reply.

 

I will point out the following regarding a demcratic process, of which, voting is paramount.

 

Casting a vote matters in the outcome.

 

In this specific case, casting a vote for a slate of selected people does not matter 0 the selection made, so casting votes does not matter.

 

Neither does voting in future WC2 structure,as it is set out.  Polling to remain seated on Council, and the selection process, and then a vote upon a pre-selected slate: in no way is that democratic. 

Fine, then it isn't democratic. Some people would say what we've set up is democratic, others, including myself, would not. It is, however, how things are set up. I'm fine agreeing with you that it's not democratic. Why are we still talking about it?

 

redhead wrote:

A vote, in this way, is rather like a poll of popularity.

Not even close. Voting for individual mods would be a popularity contest. This slate are not all popular with me, nor I with them. But I am happy with the choices.

 

redhead wrote:

And forgive me if I hve missed this, but I have not read where a voting process elects anyone in WC2.  Voting, through an election process, seems to be a primary element of a democratic process.

Again, not arguing.

 

redhead wrote:

I have no prbolem with how WC2 will operate.

*blinks*

 

These posts have been about how you don't have a problem with it? You have an awful lot of people fooled.

 

redhead wrote:

I do have a problem with presenting WC2 as operating under a democratic process.  It is not democratic, and voting does not matter.  I have never read, on any thread regarding WC2, how voting and the results of votes would, in any way, influence how and who operates WC2.

Voting does matter, though I would not characterize the vote as truly democratic. It's a vote of confidence in the slate, and gives us a barometer that the community approves of what we're doing.

 

redhead wrote:

And if I have missed that information, I welcome the information and apologise in advance if I have misunderstood, in any way, 1)how voting matters,and 2) how this is a democratic process.

I've told you multiple times that I don't view this as democratic, though some will disagree with me, and we've all explained why voting matters. You don't care to listen, because you keep asking.

 

There are multiple different opinions on whether this is democratic or not, you say not, I say not, other say yes, it has aspects of democracy. But it is what it is.

 

The voting matters because the views of the community matter to us. If we didn't care, we wouldn't keep posting.

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

Thank you, chansen, for agreeing that it is not democratic.

 

That also means that a vote does not matter.

 

That answers all of my questions into the process.

 

The voting process is merely an opion poll.  That is fair enough, and I appreciate that understanding it as a poll, rather than a democratic voting process, is acknowledged.

Back to Church Life topics
cafe