Voting closes at midnight Monday, June 2 so you have 4 days to vote.

 

Voted.  Great team of people.  You will do an excellent job.

 

I recuse myself from the voting process due to a definite conflict of interest.

You can vote for the rest of us and pretend you aren't included.

Voted. Thank you for the opportunity

Done and Thank you

Done.

 

Note: i do recommend that those on the slate vote.  If you think of it, people running for election always vote.

Could we use something besides Surveymonkey to vote. It is way to easy to hack, and becasue we have 5 good candidates, the vote is likely to be a lot closer than prior votes. Surveymonkey ffers no way to hold a reccount and no way to ensure that people have only voted once and not 5 or more times. It only takes a little knowledge in order to do so.      A close vote using a system that is easy to hack may cause distrust among the WC community.  At least that is my worry. DOes anyone else have the same worry?.

 

I would suggest that we wondermail in our votes to a scrutinneer agreed upon by the candidates (Crazyheart has experience) 

Alex, if there are 5 good people, why do you think the yes/no vote would be so close?

If there are problems, we can do so. Our patterns so far have indicated this is not a challenge.

Once we open up wondercafe, we can amend.  If the patterns on voting shift, we will have a clear indication of vote tampering and can amend the survey monkey method.

 

Alex, we hear & understand your concern. It is something the admins have been watching.

I see now that there are 5 open positions. In that case  I do not believ a vote is needed>?        

 

Declare them elected and than confirm the election by a motion 

Alex, the agreement was that we would have the slate confirmed by the community.  This item is that confirmation.

A slate is only needed when there is a contested election. In this case if we were to use Roberts's Rule as an example everyone nominated is acclaimed. Than a motion is put forward approve the results. I know it's just about words, but in the long term it makes it easier for people to understand the process if we use the language that Roberts and other rules of orders use.

We have already voted on how council would be determined.

Hey, starting to sound like Presbytery again.

 

We do not need to fix it now, but you need have a different procedure for non contested elections, and contested election. 

 

But it is just a bulletin board and a first elections, so it will do, I am just projecting into the future. 

That's not the case, people were nominated who are not on the slate.

Alex.  Per the council process, there is no election.  There are nominations and then a slate proposed for confirmation. Please review the other thread, and comment there if you wish a process change. 

Sorry about that, I started working last month (for the first time in a long time) and due to fatique I have not kept up.

 

It just seems strange to me, and not an election process that I have experienced before. I just can not vote not knowing who all the candidates are.

alex, I will send you a PM to discuss and see if I can help bring you up to speed.

I was a bit surprised by one or two, I think I may have gotten confused about certain people who weren't sure about moving over to WC2.  BUT - I think everyone listed will do a great job!

I agree, I think there is a healthy mixture of people a nd that they have what it takes to do the jobs they are nominated for well.

Devastated that I'm not on the slate, of course, but ... c'est la vie. WC2 is in fine hands.

Hi Pinga,

 

 

Ahhhh the old "everyone else is doing it" argument.

 

Should I counter with the popular, "If everyone was jumping off a bridge would you do that too?"

 

I have never, ever voted for a slate that I was a part of.  It is a clear conflict of interest.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

 

Umm, no that is not the point.

If you do like the slate, then you should affirm it through your vote.

If you don't , then vote against it.

Pinga notes rev Steven davis' desire

There were several of us who said we weren't sticking around awhile ago are still clinging on hoping for improvement, and there've been some signs of it- better than the fallout after the announcement WC was closing- so I guess minds change and priorities can be reassessed. It's an ongoing process for me for the last few months. I have to admit I have a love hate, or at least love and annoyed, relationship with this place but whoever's here (at the new location I mean)- their best is the best they can do and all the moderators have strengths, as does everyone.

DUN DUN DUN DOOOOOONE!

Chicka boom chicka boom boom bah

...meh

Bee bop bee bop skattle dee doo. Waiting do the vote count how bout you?

I have a serious question- if there are a couple of choices for moderators that you disagree with on the overall slate, not because they're not decent people but because of other reasons that it would be better if they shared their talents in a different capacity so you vote no- what happens to the slate. All new people on it or just some alterations and how can those alterations take into account concerns? That said, compromise is always a necessity- therefore it probably shouldn't even being going to a vote just do it- but since it is those are my questions/ concerns.

 

imho,

 

that's for you to decide, whether your concerns are worth a 'yea' or a 'nay'...

 

otherwise we'll be here forever picking out a perfect Mod Squad

 

(which reminds me of a time when i was involved with a new franchise of a global gaming organization.  we were gathered at my place and we were hammering out the details of our franchise...we even were VOTING ON HOW TO VOTE...i had to take lots of breaks during that meeting, it was so strange...see how strange Canadians can be, Pilgrims Progress?)

 

 

Shift in what way? What would draw your suspicions?

 

 

 

 

 

Okay. That's why selection of nominees makes sense to a point I guess but given a choice- no it's not perfect so we probably shouldn't be given a choice to vote or a new slate because you can please some people some of the time but you can't please all the people all the time. Unless specific concerns can be addressed before the new slate gets picked the vote is useless. And because they can't be- no matter what the vote is. Oh who cares. It's fine afterall. Nobody's perfect. There's no way to address legit concern so I'll just shut up again. Good enough. The team hopefully will keep each other making sense.

Hi all...

 

The question is seeking affirmation of the process to date. We are asked to support those persons who have been nominated and selected. I have not once considered this as an election. That belongs, for me, on the other side of the boat.

 

Names have been chosen and posted. Will you accept the names as sufficient to the task of moderation as we go forward along the way of this opportunity?

 

Will you affirm these persons, and by that affirmation consent to their function as moderators? It is implied that you will support and encourage them in their shared responsibility. It also means you commit to keep them honest. 

 

We are a motely crew to be sure. That may be just the thing to set us off in a good way.

 

George

 

I see your point George. It makes sense. It's not just about them managing us. That's where my fear comes from but someone else could have the same concern about a whole different 'slate' so ....okay. I'm wrong here.

That is the point of the slate of 5.  you have to decide if they can work together, if there is enough cross section to support, and so on.

 

If you cannot then you will decide to not support it.

 

If you and enough people choose to not support it, it won't pass.

 

If it doesn't pass, we ponder our options and request input from the comunity.

 

In the meantime, the clock keeps ticking, the process goes on.  

 

 

Note: if the community truly missed the mark that much, then I would ask where there nominations are.

 

If you want only your opinion and your choices presented on a council, then I ask, if maybe you should consider starting a forum of like minded folks.

 

If you are willing to compromise, but, feel that none of those folks meet your requirements, AND you volunteered names that do meet your standards, then I suggest you vote no.

 

Yes, I thought one of those on the slate previously voiced that they would probably not be joining WC2 due to other time commitments. It seems like a pretty big jump from (paraphrasing) 'I might not even be joining WC2' to, 'Yes, please, include me on the slate. I'm ready and able to serve.'

 

Jae, sorry, but it is against admin 101 to disclose any of our secret tools.  (not kidding, it is not something that i can disclose at work either to those curious)

 

You're devestated that you're not on? Meanwhile I'm ecstatic not to have been included.

 

would you be willing to be treasurer?  i know nothing aboot your financial skillz, just your humanolinguistic ones

Oh for crying out! So if you see no votes you're going to think 'vote tampering'? We should be so important. There's more suspiscion for the community here as any of the community has ever had for the admin team- because the admin teams not open to critique of themselves. We have admins who are concerned that the- community- yes community- would bother with vote tampering. Some love and trust. It's so stupid. I know how I voted- once (before George made better sense of the situation) and I probably shouldn't been taking my concern so seriously anyway.

Kimmio, 

 

It isn't the vote count of yes/no that would indicate.  That would indicate we did a good or bad job of picking people for you to vote for.

 

If we get a 1000 votes for this item, though, it may suggest a shift, do you agree?

Kimmio, if you look at the thread, you will see that Alex asked the question.  I hope you understand that yes, as Admins, we do need to be concerned about such items.  It may be you wish that we didn't, but as Alex asked the question,  I have answered it.

Yes. I agree if it happened it would raise eyebrows. It would indicate something wrong. I really doubt anyone here would be so petty. But why even bring it up and make us feel that you think we someone here might actually do something like that.

voted

no problem

All good people

I'll get behind them and support them

 

Kimmio, you realize Alex asked the question and made the comment, right?

Thanks Seeler.

 

Geo, I love your comments,  Thank you for sharing.

 

Quickly checked the membership list. Seems Wondercafe has at least 1,000 members, so why would such a vote be so alarming?

 

Ha, just kidding.