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-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 > > > >
