Excellent set of questions
Yes, this discussion is useful.
Three year term is fine, and three members changing each year seems good - but another thought - maybe we should consider whether we want voting every year <smile>.
Regarding voting, I think each person (we'll have to decide who can vote) should have 3 votes, since that is number we'll be electing each year if we agree with Wayne's suggestion. With one vote I feel we'll all vote for Wayne <smile> - can't see votes for anyone else with only one vote each. Also each voter could distribute his votes or give them to the same person i.e. she can give all three to the same person, or give two to one, and one to the other, or give one each to three people. Though then we'll have to decide - in year one do we all have nine votes each?
We could decide on a minimum of representation for each gender - say one third - then the three who have got the maximum votes from the particular gender would qualify (can u see that I am making a gender neutral statement <smile>). Cannot see how the regional representation can be achieved under fair and democratic voting without making 'reservations' for each zone.
Yes, the board could have powers to co-opt members (say max 2) specially for their technical expertise. This may be important when we extend the scope of the wikied!!
Yes, we do need an Executive Director. Wayne has been functioning as one and can anyone see any of this happening without him!!
I agree with having as many votes as there are open seats, rather than just one.
I'm sold - I now see the benefits of providing as many votes as there are vacant seats.
We also need to think about the reality of a low turnout during the election. Our community is still very young and a low poll is definitely an issue. Worst case scenario - we should prepare for a situation where we don't get a clear voting outcome for all the vacant seats.
So in the event of a valid nomination, and we don't fill all the seats during the election - we should provide for the duly elected members to collaboratively take a decision on filling any vacant seats from valid nominees.
I assume that each nominee will at least get one vote (i.e., his or her own) so I take it you mean what to do in the event of a tie? Or do you mean in the event that there are insufficient nominations to fill all the available seats?
I'm not too concerned about finding valid nominations for the available seats. Given the values of many WikiEducators - I strongly suspect that many nominees would not vote for themselves. I for one, would not vote for myself.
Lets hope that we don't have to deal with such a situation, but in the event that it arises our policy should cater for such situations.
The challenge with an international community is that many voters may not know the nominees and therefore feel that they can't cast a vote for someone they don't know that well. Perhaps I'm being overly "careful" in providing for eventualities that may not arise.
The nominee will be a member of the community - so they should not be restricted from voting.
You raise a good point about what we need to do in the event of a tie.
Also - do we use an open or closed ballot, that is do we publish the vote tallies as they are cast in the traditions of an open community, or do we keep the vote counts secret until the result is published?
I'm voting for more than one vote per person ... actually I'm voting twice for more than one vote per person :-) I'm not sure that we'll have enough voters to just go one vote and get enough people on the Board.