From jasonmbechtel at gmail.com Wed Mar 7 20:40:07 2007 From: jasonmbechtel at gmail.com (Jason Bechtel) Date: Wed Mar 7 20:40:12 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Upcoming Election, Nominations Message-ID: Hello, everyone. Well, the constitution passed. Here's the link the official TALUG Constitution: http://talug.org/constitution/constitution.html So, now we need to hold an election. The election date will be the first regular meeting *after* March 21 (the vernal equinox), which happens to be April 21st, 2007. Nominations are due 4 weeks prior to the election, which would put the due date at March 24th. But, we would like to have nominations occur at a regular meeting, too, so even though you can send in a nomination by email, it would be nice if you could also announce it at the meeting on *March 17th*. Please consider nominating yourself or someone else in the LUG who you think would be a good candidate for the following positions: # President # Vice-President # Secretary # Treasurer The Constitution lists six specific responsibilities to be covered by the board of four officers and also explicitly demands a "Roles and Responsibilities Document" in which a list of less predictable responsibilities can be maintained. Since this is our first board under the new Constitution, that document does not exist yet. Thus, it is difficult to present a list of responsibilities for each office. You'll just have to choose responsible people and hope that they do a good job. :o) So, think about the people you know who seem to be active in the LUG (including yourself) and be ready to toss those names into the ring at the next meeting. If you can't make the meeting, just send the name in an email to 'officers at talug.org'. Thanks! We're almost there! Ever onward, Jason From ajsheamail at gmail.com Sat Mar 17 22:53:30 2007 From: ajsheamail at gmail.com (adam shea) Date: Sat Mar 17 22:53:38 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: nominations received at the recent TALUG session Message-ID: <46bc7ec20703172053s70eb9833t6eee98f044ab924c@mail.gmail.com> Steve Tryc for treasurer Andrew Grieser for secretary Jim Helton for ?? Adam Shea vice president From jasonmbechtel at gmail.com Fri Mar 23 10:02:41 2007 From: jasonmbechtel at gmail.com (Jason Bechtel) Date: Fri Mar 23 10:02:46 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Re: TALUG: nominations needed for election... In-Reply-To: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> References: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Abdul has nominated himself for the position of president. Jim, please restate the position for which you are nominated. Nominations are due tomorrow! On 3/18/07, Hello Buddy wrote: > > TALUG: > > The deadline for nominations is March 24 and we are still w/ out a nomination > for president. Please think about nominating yourself for this position or any > other position that is of interest. > > -Adam > > P.S. > > Thus far there has been the following nominations: > > Steve Tryc for treasurer > Andrew Grieser for secretary > Jim Helton for ?? > Adam Shea vice president > > P.P.S > > Jim, remind which position you would like to run for. From adakkak at eng.utoledo.edu Tue Mar 27 07:19:03 2007 From: adakkak at eng.utoledo.edu (adakkak) Date: Tue Mar 27 07:19:05 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Re: TALUG: nominations needed for election... In-Reply-To: References: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: since there is only one nominee per office, do people win by default? if not, then could I vote against someone? (not that I will do that) On 3/23/07, Jason Bechtel wrote: > > <-------- TALUG Info: http://www.talug.org --------> > > Abdul has nominated himself for the position of president. > > Jim, please restate the position for which you are nominated. > Nominations are due tomorrow! > > > On 3/18/07, Hello Buddy wrote: > > > > TALUG: > > > > The deadline for nominations is March 24 and we are still w/ out a > nomination > > for president. Please think about nominating yourself for this position > or any > > other position that is of interest. > > > > -Adam > > > > P.S. > > > > Thus far there has been the following nominations: > > > > Steve Tryc for treasurer > > Andrew Grieser for secretary > > Jim Helton for ?? > > Adam Shea vice president > > > > P.P.S > > > > Jim, remind which position you would like to run for. > _______________________________________________ > talug mailing list > talug@talug.org > http://webhost3.uniqsys.com/mailman/listinfo/talug > -- 6 5 9 8 1 0 0 1 1 7 1 0 8 1 0 9 9 7 1 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://webhost3.uniqsys.com/pipermail/talug-board/attachments/20070327/724613cc/attachment.html From jasonmbechtel at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 07:42:13 2007 From: jasonmbechtel at gmail.com (Jason Bechtel) Date: Tue Mar 27 07:42:16 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Re: TALUG: nominations needed for election... In-Reply-To: References: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Here's what I think makes sense: There will still be a vote. If no one votes for one of the offices, then the lone candidate does not win by default. You can only vote *for* someone; there are no "negative votes". I still have not heard what position Jim Helton nominated himself for. As long as he expressed it before the deadline, his nomination counts and there is at least one contested office. On 3/27/07, adakkak wrote: > > since there is only one nominee per office, do people win by default? if > not, then could I vote against someone? (not that I will do that) From adakkak at eng.utoledo.edu Tue Mar 27 07:46:27 2007 From: adakkak at eng.utoledo.edu (adakkak) Date: Tue Mar 27 07:46:31 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Re: TALUG: nominations needed for election... In-Reply-To: References: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Jason Bechtel wrote: > > Here's what I think makes sense: > > There will still be a vote. If no one votes for one of the offices, > then the lone candidate does not win by default. You can only vote > *for* someone; there are no "negative votes". > Isn't that the same thing as winning by default? (assuming that the person who nominated himself will vote for himself) I still have not heard what position Jim Helton nominated himself for. > As long as he expressed it before the deadline, his nomination counts > and there is at least one contested office. > > > On 3/27/07, adakkak wrote: > > > > since there is only one nominee per office, do people win by default? if > > not, then could I vote against someone? (not that I will do that) > _______________________________________________ > talug-board mailing list > talug-board@talug.org > http://uniqsys.com/mailman/listinfo/talug-board > -- 6 5 9 8 1 0 0 1 1 7 1 0 8 1 0 9 9 7 1 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://webhost3.uniqsys.com/pipermail/talug-board/attachments/20070327/5f879694/attachment.html From jasonmbechtel at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 08:29:11 2007 From: jasonmbechtel at gmail.com (Jason Bechtel) Date: Tue Mar 27 08:29:14 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Re: TALUG: nominations needed for election... In-Reply-To: References: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, adakkak wrote: > > On 3/27/07, Jason Bechtel wrote: > > Here's what I think makes sense: > > > > There will still be a vote. If no one votes for one of the offices, > > then the lone candidate does not win by default. You can only vote > > *for* someone; there are no "negative votes". > > Isn't that the same thing as winning by default? (assuming that the person > who nominated himself will vote for himself) No, it's called "running unopposed" and it happens all the time in elections for offices that actually determine how society operates. From adakkak at eng.utoledo.edu Tue Mar 27 09:24:27 2007 From: adakkak at eng.utoledo.edu (adakkak) Date: Tue Mar 27 09:24:32 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Re: TALUG: nominations needed for election... In-Reply-To: <30170.66.51.146.97.1175002514.squirrel@mail.cantonpl.org> References: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> <30170.66.51.146.97.1175002514.squirrel@mail.cantonpl.org> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, Carl T. Miller wrote: > > <-------- TALUG Info: http://www.talug.org --------> > > adakkak wrote: > > <-------- TALUG Info: http://www.talug.org --------> > > > > On 3/27/07, Jason Bechtel wrote: > >> > >> Here's what I think makes sense: > >> > >> There will still be a vote. If no one votes for one of the offices, > >> then the lone candidate does not win by default. You can only vote > >> *for* someone; there are no "negative votes". > >> > > > > Isn't that the same thing as winning by default? (assuming that the > person > > who nominated himself will vote for himself) > > Not the same thing. There has to be an election for someone > to be elected. In other words, you don't get elected to an > office by virtue of being the only candidate...you actually > have to get enough votes, which may be as few as one. > > c I still do not get it. If a nominee is running unopposed and he can vote for himself, then he will get the popular vote (at least his own vote since the others cannot vote against him). First of all this has nothing to do with the current candidates, I applaud them for volunteering. So let me pick on myself. Now, since the nomination period is officially over, I am running for president unopposed (assuming that Jim Helton will not run for president). So if for some reason by the next meeting my philosophy drastically changes, and I come in with shirt that has Mr. Bill's face on it and I boast Vista's superiority over linux, then I can still in theory (assuming that I survive :D ) win, because no one can vote against me and I can have the minimum vote (1 = my vote). I think this issue arises from the fact that we did not define a quorum for elections in the constitution --- only defined it for recall. Anyways, this is the first TALUG election in a LONG time and whatever mistakes we make should be corrected by the next election. I just wanted to point out something that has happened occasionally at another organization that I am involved in, where the president is running uncontested and wins by default even though he is unfit for the position. btw. I suppose an unqualified candidate can be recalled after the voting is over. _______________________________________________ > talug mailing list > talug@talug.org > http://webhost3.uniqsys.com/mailman/listinfo/talug > -- 6 5 9 8 1 0 0 1 1 7 1 0 8 1 0 9 9 7 1 0 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://webhost3.uniqsys.com/pipermail/talug-board/attachments/20070327/fcf0a541/attachment-0001.html From jasonmbechtel at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 09:52:35 2007 From: jasonmbechtel at gmail.com (Jason Bechtel) Date: Tue Mar 27 09:52:40 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Re: TALUG: nominations needed for election... In-Reply-To: References: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> <30170.66.51.146.97.1175002514.squirrel@mail.cantonpl.org> Message-ID: On 3/27/07, adakkak wrote: > > I still do not get it. If a nominee is running unopposed and he can vote for > himself, then he will get the popular vote (at least his own vote since the > others cannot vote against him). > > First of all this has nothing to do with the current candidates, I applaud > them for volunteering. So let me pick on myself. Now, since the nomination > period is officially over, I am running for president unopposed (assuming > that Jim Helton will not run for president). So if for some reason by the > next meeting my philosophy drastically changes, and I come in with shirt > that has Mr. Bill's face on it and I boast Vista's superiority over linux, > then I can still in theory (assuming that I survive :D ) win, because no one > can vote against me and I can have the minimum vote (1 = my vote). I think > this issue arises from the fact that we did not define a quorum for > elections in the constitution --- only defined it for recall. Anyways, this > is the first TALUG election in a LONG time and whatever mistakes we make > should be corrected by the next election. > > I just wanted to point out something that has happened occasionally at > another organization that I am involved in, where the president is running > uncontested and wins by default even though he is unfit for the position. Everything you say is true. If you want to call it "winning by default", that is your choice of words. It has some relationship to the truth in that the person can win without really having to possess any of the requisite skills, but it's not technically correct. Instead of finding fault with the election system, however, one could argue that this is great motivation for more people to run for office next time! If the candidates really aren't living up to the expectations of the group, then those who are disappointed should be preparing to run for office next time around. If the candidates are living up to expectations, then there is no problem. > btw. I suppose an unqualified candidate can be recalled after the voting is > over. In your extreme example of a sudden turn to the dark side, yes. :o) From jshriver at gmail.com Tue Mar 27 09:59:32 2007 From: jshriver at gmail.com (Joshua Shriver) Date: Tue Mar 27 09:59:35 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Re: TALUG: nominations needed for election... In-Reply-To: References: <8ded322e0703172126o3bebc4e4m11511cd2f6700106@mail.gmail.com> <30170.66.51.146.97.1175002514.squirrel@mail.cantonpl.org> Message-ID: I was going to run, but didn't feel I had the free time to give the club justice. My schedule is starting to settle a bit, but I'm always willing to help out if I can. So let me know if I can be of assistance :) -Josh From ajsheamail at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 16:51:51 2007 From: ajsheamail at gmail.com (adam shea) Date: Thu Mar 29 16:51:56 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Presentation for May 17 Message-ID: <46bc7ec20703291451q72b4c9a6uc4517d70ac6a7c84@mail.gmail.com> Hello! Do we have a presentation lined up for May? If not, I have someone who'd be willing to give a presentation on Linux desktop environments (KDE vs Gnome vs BlackBox vs XFCE). -ajs From jasonmbechtel at gmail.com Thu Mar 29 20:35:33 2007 From: jasonmbechtel at gmail.com (Jason Bechtel) Date: Thu Mar 29 20:35:38 2007 Subject: TALUG-board: Presentation for May 17 In-Reply-To: <46bc7ec20703291451q72b4c9a6uc4517d70ac6a7c84@mail.gmail.com> References: <46bc7ec20703291451q72b4c9a6uc4517d70ac6a7c84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Not that I know of. Abdul volunteered to present at the April meeting. This is the first I've heard about a May presentation. We can go ahead and say that this will be the May presentation. It will be the first time we've had more than 4 weeks lead time on a meeting in a long time. :o) Let me know when it's confirmed and I'll put it on the website. Jason On 3/29/07, adam shea wrote: > Hello! > > Do we have a presentation lined up for May? If not, I have someone > who'd be willing to give a presentation on Linux desktop environments > (KDE vs Gnome vs BlackBox vs XFCE). > > -ajs