Policy-Discussion

[Eva Stöwe <eva.stoewe AT cacert.org>]

Dear Etienne,


On 16.03.2017 21:19, Etienne Ruedin (CAcert Inc.) wrote:
> Just for those not very familiar with the current possibilities:
>
> There is a page in the wiki: "How to Proxy - Or what to do if you cannot be
> present at a General Meeting"
> https://wiki.cacert.org/SGM/Proxy
> (It was written by CAcert experts.)
>
>
>
> I see one big advantage for early vote:
> If I want to participate the meeting and does not name a proxy (at least 24
> hrs before the meeting), maybe something happend and I cannot. So I can
> still (until 1 hr befor the meeting) send an early vote! 

I understand your issues with the set-up in CAcert Inc.

Well, there is no 24h deadline for proxies in my proposal. On the
contrary the option to declare a proxy before the chair is named. Which
implies that naming a proxy is allowed at the meeting, because only
there it's the "chair" and not only a "conducting arbitrator" (which the
chair would be, anyway).

Sure, the conducting arbitrators can decide something differently, but
currently I don't see a reason to assume that they would chose exactly
what Inc has defined. The "default" in the proposal does not know or
even speak about such deadlines. So the arbitrators probably would have
to have a reason to add one (which actually could be the case, but then
- well - there would be a reason to do it like this, in the interest of
the community or to do the election in a sensible manner).


Btw: There is also no specific description when and how proxies have to
be disclosed or any other details. As I said, my solution is to leave
the details to the conducting arbitrators, as we just don't know the
issues that they/we will have to face when something like this is done.

I believe the issues will be in completely other areas than regarding
GMs from Inc. (Something for another mail.)

> (and in *this*
> case I do not see Eva's issues - if a lot early vots are sent 14 days
> before the meeting ... this could be something else)

Just because one allows early votes closer to the meeting, than one
allows proxies, does not say that early votes could not and would not be
send 14 days in advance. Actually I would assume two peaks of early
votes if they would be allowed and used: Shortly after the list of
candidates is complete and members are informed about it (your 14 days)
or directly before the meeting. While my experience from other areas is
that the first peek would be the higher one.

My arguments about early votes are not addressed (neither countered nor
intensified) by the fact that there is an organisation that allows early
votes closer to their meeting than proxies. That would be an argument
about such deadlines, not about early votes or proxies. ;-)

My answer here is my proposal. It left out such deadlines.

> Best regards
> Etienne

Kind regards,
Eva

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature