Brian, all,
Just to be clear -- I have listed my concerns, I'm not opposing
the proposal.
Leslie.
Brian Moore wrote:
>
> Leslie,
> This procedure will definately guarantee that we get a result in such a
> weighted vote. If anyone is not able to join in they will give a proxy
> to their colleague so there will be a result.
> It is precisely because we may not be able to choose between two strong
> candidates that we need a sophisticated way of tossing a coin. I am not
> in favour of your proposal for choosing someone who is objected to the
> least (unless we send them another questionnaire asking them to tell us
> what objectional characteristics they may have and why they should not
> be on the Board!)
> I know you want to avoid 'deadlock breaking' if at all possible but we
> must have an agreement on when to invoke it. We only have a short time
> on Friday and we can not end with a disagreement on whether or not we
> have reached deadlock.
> Brian.
>
> In message <39BD89B3.23A19B89@thinkingcat.com>, Leslie Daigle
> <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM> writes
> >Howdy,
> >
> >Brian Moore wrote:
> >> We suggest that, if after three votes during our teleconference next
> >> Friday we are still deadlocked, we do the following.
> >
> >I assume we're all still in agreement that this is a suggested
> >time to declare deadlock -- I don't agree to setting any predefined
> >automatic criteria for invoking it (there are too many possibilities
> >of extenuating circumstances!).
> >
> >As I said on the last teleconf, there is a very real possibility
> >we will get deadlocked because we have strong candidates. In that
> >case, we really are using random measures to pick between them,
> >but playing it out in terms of randomly weighting inputs. I find
> >that an uncomfortable thought, and truly hope we will be able to
> >get to consensus before we get anywhere near having to to this. But,
> >if we do, I would like there to be a follow-on input on a separate
> >question, with the results noted somewhere in non-public archives:
> >namely, who is willing to assert strong OBJECTION to the candidate
> >selected. If there are no strong objections, we simply couldn't
> >pick between good candidates. If there are strong objections,
> >it's cause for pause.
> >
> >Finally, I appreciate the effort that you & Gerry have put into
> >this mechanism (having spent some time thinking about it and dead-ending
> >myself), but I do not think it's guaranteed to break deadlock
> >if we have less than perfect attendance & participation. I'm simply
> >making an observation, hoping for perfect attendance & participation,
> >not suggesting any tweaks.
> >
> >Leslie.
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary...
> > ... or was that the other way around?"
> > -- ThinkingCat
> >
> >Leslie Daigle
> >leslie@thinkingcat.com
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> B W Moore
> Lucent Technologies
> Tel: +44 1206 762335
> Fax: +44 1206 762336
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality with a delicate splash of the imaginary...
... or was that the other way around?"
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================