Re: [Hampshire] Remote voting at general meetings

Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:02:18PM +0100, Chris Dennis wrote:
>
>> Before the recent AGM I raised yet again the question of remote voting,
>> and was reminded that what was lacking was a proposal for how to
>> implement such a system.
>>
>> So, as promised, here is such a proposal for discussion by the committee
>> and the membership.
>>
>
> Thanks for writing this up.
>
> As I've said the previous times this has been brought up, my main
> personal concern with it is that I think it will lead to domination
> of LUG decisions by people who never turn up to actual meetings.
>
> My perception is that the majority of the hard work that goes into
> maintaining the LUG's momentum is expended by the committee and the
> people that turn up to meetings. I would not like to see these
> people effectively disenfranchised by the much larger group that is
> only ever heard from on this list.
>
> The list itself is provided by lug.org.uk, comparatively[1] little
> effort is required by Hampshire LUG to keep it going day to day and
> aside from the decision to open the archives up I don't really
> recall any matters that have required a vote. I think it is only
> right and proper that people need to turn up in person at a meeting
> to vote at those very rare times that it is an issue.

Hi Andy,

Initially I fully agreed with your point, and as someone who only pokes
his head around the door occasionally I certainly have no problem with
the current arrangement - if I want to be heard at the AGM I will attend
in person. That said, I live in Hampshire, have access to transport and
am able bodied, all of which makes my attendance a relatively simple
thing to achieve, should I so wish.

However, when you think about it, HantsLUG is the sum of the list and
the meetings, so maybe there is more to it than that. Whilst I agree
that non-attending members voting on matters of policy with regard to
choice of venue is a bit of a nonsense, what's to say they shouldn't
have a say over matters of administration with regard to the list or
policy where, say, advocacy is concerned?

Sean