2009/1/17 AndrewRT <ratur...@yahoo.co.uk>:
> On Jan 16, 6:07 pm, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have no particularly strong feelings on it..
> Likewise!
>> ...  Having two completely new boards within
>> 2 months could be very complicated and confusing for all kinds of
>> relationships. Obviously, those that won the original election stand a
>> very good chance of winning the new one, but there is no real need to
>> put them through that, so why bother?
> I think if we can't even get three Board members elected with majority
> support something has gone wrong and we'd need a complete rethink of
> our approach and a lot of new blood. I think giving the members an
> opportunity for a clean sweep would be worthwhile.

There is one situation where we could fail to get people with
majorities without it being due to a serious underlying problem with
the chapter - tactical voting. If an election ends up being held
primarily on one issue, on which there are three points of view,
people may well vote only for those holding their point of view even
if they actually wouldn't mind some of the others being on the board,
just to make sure the board has a majority in their favour on that
issue (they don't need unanimity, so they could approve a few other
people, but they don't want to risk it). This could result in a large
number of people voting for less than 7 members, in which case it
becomes extremely difficult for anyone to get a majority.

I'm not sure that makes any difference to this discussion (a
completely new election would probably be good in that case, after
giving everyone a good clip round the ear and telling them to vote
properly), but I just wanted to point out that this situation could
occur under less severe circumstances than you're assuming.

> It's interesting to note that not a single director of WMUK v1 was
> elected onto the Board on WMUK v2 - perhaps an example of the kind of
> situation that this provision is intended to deal with.

None of them stood, either, and the only reason there is a WMUKv2 is
because they decided they didn't want to or were unable to do the job.
I really don't see how this example helps. The situation in question
is where 1 or 2 people have a majority support and no-one else does,
the question is whether or not that 1 or 2 should need to go through
an election again. I see little to gain by making them do so, and it
does seem rather unfair (they won the election fair and square, why
shouldn't they get a year long term just because the rest of the
people standing were rubbish?).

Wikimedia UK mailing list

Reply via email to