Re: [nanog-admin] NANOG Elections
On 10/16/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:03:36PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > At 60 votes, that's .6% participation. If we don't hit at least 2, we > > ought to seriously consider disbanding the current "evolution". > > If that means the disbanding of NANOG is that acceptable? I don't see how the two are inextricably linked. There would be no reason for nanog to discontinue as a result of disbanding the bureaucracy. > > I think the numbers may slightly mislead here as Betty told > me privately the other day, roughly 30% (or was it 1/3) of attendees > do not return to nanog. That is someone that is in the voter pool that > is not likely to vote. Not intentionally. The numbers I usually use for this stuff are a superset of subscribers to the list plus digest. I believe that the 8400 list members count. We didn't need any framework or MLC to get AUP changes done. We needed some work. -M<
Re: NANOG Elections
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote: Also, possibly, instead of posting to -announce, a direct email to last-registered-email should be sent to each eligible voter reminding them to vote - Some people who attend aren't on any mailing list. (actually, it is an interesting data point, but probably impossible to gather correct data on). I'm abashed to admit that I didn't end up voting - I left it until the end of the day, having not realized when the voting closed. cheers! == "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."
Re: NANOG Elections
Question, I wonder if we can get statistics on how many people who have registered at this nanog have voted vs those who are not physically here? This would help determine if putting a "voting desktop" outside of main conference room help increase voting participation? Also, possibly, instead of posting to -announce, a direct email to last-registered-email should be sent to each eligible voter reminding them to vote - Some people who attend aren't on any mailing list. (actually, it is an interesting data point, but probably impossible to gather correct data on). -alex
Re: NANOG Elections
Hello, On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, at 10:50, Joe Abley wrote: > > On 16-Oct-2007, at 0950, Betty J. Burke wrote: > >> Please encourage everyone to take advantage of the process .. >> >> Voting activity picked up a lot this morning, but if the level of >> participation doesn't increase rapidly, we may have a lower >> turnout than last year. I think last year we had about 160 ballots cast. > > Steve asked me to stand up and say something election-rousing after Cathy > and before the following panel. Hopefully that will help. certainly not meant as a criticism: Perhaps what would have helped too, would have been to send a notice to nanog-futures _before_ the actual start of the online vote ? The first notice i see on the subject was sent 4 hrs before the closing. Too late
Re: [nanog-admin] NANOG Elections
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:03:36PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote: > At 60 votes, that's .6% participation. If we don't hit at least 2, we > ought to seriously consider disbanding the current "evolution". If that means the disbanding of NANOG is that acceptable? I think the numbers may slightly mislead here as Betty told me privately the other day, roughly 30% (or was it 1/3) of attendees do not return to nanog. That is someone that is in the voter pool that is not likely to vote. I do think we need to change the voting process to include an individual message (read: SPAM) to each person saying "btw, you can vote the bums out that made that conference you didn't return to". - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: [nanog-admin] NANOG Elections
At 60 votes, that's .6% participation. If we don't hit at least 2, we ought to seriously consider disbanding the current "evolution". -M< On 10/16/07, Betty J. Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All: > > Please encourage everyone to take advantage of the process .. > > Voting activity picked up a lot this morning, but if the level of > participation doesn't increase rapidly, we may have a lower > turnout than last year. I think last year we had about 160 ballots cast. > > Betty > > > >
Re: NANOG Elections
On 16-Oct-2007, at 0950, Betty J. Burke wrote: Please encourage everyone to take advantage of the process .. Voting activity picked up a lot this morning, but if the level of participation doesn't increase rapidly, we may have a lower turnout than last year. I think last year we had about 160 ballots cast. Steve asked me to stand up and say something election-rousing after Cathy and before the following panel. Hopefully that will help. Joe
Re: NANOG Elections
Hi Jared: A reminder regarding elections and the survey was also sent to nanog-announce:> Betty --On Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:03 PM -0400 Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Did the election notice go out to everyone that is in the current voter list? (I seem to recall it's anyone that attended in the past 2 years). Perhaps a note to nanog-announce or similar would be worthwhile. - Jared On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Betty Burke wrote: All: Please encourage everyone to take advantage of the process .. Voting activity picked up a lot this morning, but if the level of participation doesn't increase rapidly, we may have a lower turnout than last year. I think last year we had about 160 ballots cast. Betty -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: NANOG Elections
Did the election notice go out to everyone that is in the current voter list? (I seem to recall it's anyone that attended in the past 2 years). Perhaps a note to nanog-announce or similar would be worthwhile. - Jared On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:50:07AM -0400, Betty Burke wrote: > All: > > Please encourage everyone to take advantage of the process .. > > Voting activity picked up a lot this morning, but if the level of > participation doesn't increase rapidly, we may have a lower > turnout than last year. I think last year we had about 160 ballots cast. > > Betty > > -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
NANOG Elections
All: Please encourage everyone to take advantage of the process .. Voting activity picked up a lot this morning, but if the level of participation doesn't increase rapidly, we may have a lower turnout than last year. I think last year we had about 160 ballots cast. Betty
