Re: [members-discuss] Request to amend the RIPE NCC Articles of Association
25 Jun 2014 18:46 sander@steffann.nl I strongly disagree. This may be true for things that are published months in advance and not further discussed during the AGM. At the last AGM there was a lot of discussion on some subjects, and for me the presentations of the candidates for the board also made a big difference.
People voting the day before are likely because they can't make the meeting so they won't see the presentations or discussion. Thus they should be considered not a valid opinion and barred from voting? They can't have prior or independently obtained data to form an opinion?
If people vote blindly then what point is there in having an AGM with discussions in the first place?
Those registered to attend the meeting could be blocked from voting prior to the presentation. You might have to force them to be in the room and not have their fingers in their ears too I don't think early voting should be an issue, usually it's hard enough to get people to vote at all so best not to discourage those that will. regards brandon
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:04:58PM +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
People voting the day before are likely because they can't make the meeting so they won't see the presentations or discussion. Thus they should be considered not a valid opinion and barred from voting?
a vote without debate leaves a bad taste, be it in $parliament or at the NCC AGM. Indeed, it is not far away from a jury delivering a verdict before the evidence has been presented. The reason there is a debate/discussion of these items is to give proponents or opposers a chance to persuade even those whose mind is made up to change it. Unless one were to make the process entirely virtual and hold all debate on the ML, but then there is no need (except perhaps, legal) for a physical GM at all rgds, Sascha Luck
participants (2)
-
Brandon Butterworth -
Sascha Luck