[oclug] 9 vs 6

[Adrian Irving-Beer]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:55:41AM -0500, Mike Roy wrote:

> There seems to be an idea floating around that there's a need to
> 'fix' OCLUG by reducing the number of directors on OCLUG's board
> from nine members to a possible six.  The motive would appear to be
> to reduce or eliminate the problems associated when people gain
> their seats by acclimation.

What's interesting is, I think the two proposals are at odds with each
other.  Board Size Reduction suggests we reduce the number to avoid
acclimation; Voting Reform suggests we eliminate acclimation
altogether.

Personally, I think that if Voting Reform passes, then the size
reduction is redundant.  The board size will be appropriate to the
number of trustworthy candidates, as decided by the members.

> Perhaps a better approach to tackle this 'presumed' problem would be
> a more proactive and energetic campaign by the current board to
> encourage people to vote and, more importantly, to stand for office.

Yes.  This is always the best solution.  Regardless of board size or
voting process, we still need candidates to fill it.

> I have put my name forward to run for office.

Good for you!

(And I meant that truly and honestly, despite the traditional ironic
patronising misuse of that phrase.)

> Also, if the board is reduced to six seats - what does the board
> propose to do should there be a need for a 'tie breaker'?  Seven
> seats would be a better choice than six.

I also suggested and still suggest seven as alternative to six, but
for different reasons.

The Board Size Reduction proposal *does* deal with the issue of quorum
and tiebreakers  -- a majority vote is defined as 4 out of 6.

But that's 66%, versus 57% for seven members or 55% for nine.  Given
the increased margin for passing something, it just sounds like a six-
person board is going to pass a lot less.

That's not some political conspiracy, since it doesn't take into
account *what* they vote on.  But it does suggest that a six person
board would simply 'do' (pass) less than a seven or nine person board.

Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.  But it *is* a change that
might not be immediately obvious.

> If the board feels there is a need to reduce this number, perhaps
> they should wait until after the election so that the new board can
> deal with this issue, if, in fact, there is an issue.

Given the number of candidates running, I agree that a board size
reduction might be better off waiting.

Voting reform seems to have additional benefits, particularly for
things like pairwise voting.  I don't know what the current voting
system is, but I do know that pairwise has tended to allow people to
vote for what they want, rather than what they think they can get.
I.e. vote from the heart, not strategically.

Given the intended spirit of voting, I'm always for that.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://tux.oclug.on.ca/pipermail/oclug/attachments/20050211/fe563d59/attachment.bin