Joe Sims wrote:
> ...there are enough actual things to argue about without
> making them up. No doubt some of the more paranoid on this list can't help
> it, but those that have the ability to do so ought to avoid inventing
> things to complain about until they run out of real things.
I agree. As you pointed out earlier, the basic question is how to guarantee
representation of various interests and avoid capture by some organized group
or coalition. The MAC has recommended (and the board has approved) that we
elect the "At Large" board members by "cumulative voting," which I am told they
intended to include proportional representation schemes such as STV. However,
that recommendation would be rendered meaningless if we hold separate elections
in five divisions of the globe and stagger the election for the remaining four
seats over three years, as has been proposed in order to assure a particular
kind of diversity--geographic. You and Greg Crew are apparently charged with
resolving this issue.
Do you agree with my statement of the problem?
What alternative solutions address it?
Is this an issue which you are willing to work through on this list?
