[Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
kris.foster at gmail.com
Tue Oct 5 16:20:18 UTC 2010
On Oct 5, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Randy Epstein wrote:
> >Yes, I think 'yes' is the right vote. I do have one major concern, but I will vote 'yes' on both issues, regardless.
> > I really worry about the voter base becoming disjoint from the attendee base. I think meeting attendees should get a vote as a part of attendance.
> What worries me more is the lack of voter participation from the eligible voters. I really think this needs to be addressed in the upcoming year, possibly even going as far as putting an asterisk next to those who have voted in the previous election on the eligible voters page to encourage people (shame them?) to vote. Maybe a Get Out The Vote campaign is also needed. I realize voting is quite optional, but there are very few excuses not to vote. Something is wrong when an organization like ours has voter turnouts in the 5-10% range.
Yes, the numbers we calculated were quite dismal. Each year the number of eligible voters were an order of magnitude higher than the number that did vote.
What we are unable to measure is how many individuals voted each year that actually have an interest in, and understanding of, the organization and cast a meaningful ballot. Consistently, each conference since NANOG 11 (earliest data I had) has a very large number of first timers that never return.
More importantly, in my opinion, decoupling membership and attendance creates inclusion and allows NewNOG to operate more generally within the operations community.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Nanog-futures