Received: from localhost ([::1]:59504 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ad5HE-0007HL-FF; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:13:28 -0800 Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]:36172) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1ad5H1-000741-Uz for llg-members@lojban.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:13:22 -0800 Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m7so2879133obh.3 for ; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:13:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=P0KUeztG9UvkitPkZrAbD/uH3sxwkmszurxCRyhg5Vo=; b=Ai8MrGw0o9kqNh7b8f068Nu5D0ryZlc55BLbhAC4BQ8JYTsOdZ4Ad15kfvC3a8luX4 r1TwOA7MUv5eOQ9Iw+ZCsoXPyZ29zChrB6OT3lW2/ag7jCqEFExSd5huKyFQIEGt7SJw S3RZwGNILZRjki4uzo6tzIVxX7HDn1WkWXFIQqs/00xP6nFOP2Y29qLAJxQSwWf4Q6fx xOiA5U0KA62Oa5ZsGOLO7lGfYISsDoJs6BEB8ad9JWsz8JpL6BB3t3gl4Fij37tfLrr1 WnEFsPr+KJKF1X5AYyNKxOqeigWvBYdkIDYnkYsQUfowX3B3k12kndq/n5RMEIEfBee3 DLcg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=P0KUeztG9UvkitPkZrAbD/uH3sxwkmszurxCRyhg5Vo=; b=PSnGsxbPgEIPT0DpW09d9eiY8faJ6pD7BuXix7/5FOLVTCx318Kz8TCSGPnyEGhWsq 1yB/kZp3Gga+RWm963lhksbsukSgcNha+UDkOE960+rOz38voeFhJxpgwwaLH3Mf5AKU JBcTqK2ZoqLghDJakHG3uPzyug1Tq9QQTAe8973tJb+7tM9Mcf037wx/QxobuZ/8h2ox ud+8uFYseJBwo+c3b0XK7svxl1tILQuB25qj248Yeht+KH7faqeSfi6zLz5Rb33aB0gH Oem2mcBUmOKROoKTF2pbOBTZUKLZTebIz5T+5RkV8WBcqq4rZtREiw6sGsP81NeATAHz FBbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKuMFqr1BmouIxbsfrlz5qTye1nNlyqyVFn8Nyt9xG1VvzTOCbfioxH5fPF7qaPqIAaCeITFTHb3ymxuQ== X-Received: by 10.182.230.40 with SMTP id sv8mr15604071obc.22.1457395989933; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 16:13:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8BCCD0E2-E6D4-4687-9D89-D177E69E1259@gmail.com> <56C1998B.5050005@lojban.org> <82DDFA36-4BF2-44E7-AF8A-8A810E50EE0A@gmail.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20160302202535.032fcf18@cox.net> <56D83411.7010708@lojban.org> <0C990E0D-8744-4953-AF3E-20D14740B59A@gmail.com> <56DE1702.70806@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: <56DE1702.70806@lojban.org> From: Craig Daniel Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 00:13:00 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Clarification of votes X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5658552246545381979==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============5658552246545381979== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c1f646f730052d7e72c6 --001a1134c1f646f730052d7e72c6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'll still accept election if it happens, but I'll readily admit I'm pleased it looks improbable. On Mon, Mar 7, 2016, 7:04 PM Bob LeChevalier wrote: > On 3/6/2016 8:57 PM, guskant wrote: > > 2016-03-07 1:25 GMT+00:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch : > >> In preparation for the end of voting, I tallied votes, but was > uncertain how to record the votes for Craig and Ali. > >> > >> Craig voted for "everybody else on the ballot=E2=80=9D. Given the timi= ng of the > vote, I would be inclined to interpret that =E2=80=93 using lojbab=E2=80= =99s list =E2=80=93 as: > >> > >> Arkadii Balandin (gleki) > >> Robert LeChevalier (lojbab) > >> Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti) > >> And Rosta > >> Karen Stein > >> guskant > >> > >> Ali voted for =E2=80=9Ceveryone currently on the ballot=E2=80=9D. By t= he time of the > vote, Ali and Curtis had declared themselves candidates; guskant might no= t > be a candidate at this point, according to her intention to decline > nomination in the case that there were more than seven candidates. Alex > Burka had also received votes, but had not accepted nomination. > Accordingly, I would be inclined to interpret Ali=E2=80=99s vote as: > >> > >> Arkadii Balandin (gleki) > >> Curtis Franks > >> Ali Sajid Imani > >> Robert LeChevalier (lojbab) > >> Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti) > >> And Rosta > >> Karen Stein > >> > > > > Miles Forster (selpa'i) had already received four (4) votes before > > Ali's vote. Alex Burka (durka42) neither declined nor accepted > > nomination, but Selpa'i accepted nomination just after Ali's vote. > > Sorry for interruption but it's for clarification. > > Given my clarification of voting, which included the possibility of > "write-in" votes for those not on the ballot, I would have to rule that > any votes for someone before they declared themselves candidates would > be "write-ins" for people not on the ballot, and that those people were > not then "on the ballot". That is in fact how I was interpreting them > at the time. > > I am unsure what the status is for those people who declared candidacy > after voting started. Remember that I had called for candidates and > nominations more than a week before, and had extended the time for > making nominations. If I hadn't been running the meeting so slowly, for > my own benefit, I would probably have to rule all declarations of > candidacy as being merely an indication that they would accept a writein > election, and not that they were in any way "on the ballot". As it is, > I'll be lax and allow all those who spoke up to be considered "on the > ballot" after they spoke up, for purposes of interpreting their votes. > > Others can interpret things differently - in particular, I defer to > guskant, craig, and etc who allowed for conditional candidacy to decide > for themselves whether to accept election, if they have the votes when > the voting is over. But they are all "on the ballot". > > lojbab > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --001a1134c1f646f730052d7e72c6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'll still accept election if it happens, but I'll r= eadily admit I'm pleased it looks improbable.


On Mon, Mar 7, 2016, 7:04 P= M=C2=A0Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojb= an.org> wrote:
On 3/6/2016 8= :57 PM, guskant wrote:
> 2016-03-07 1:25 GMT+00:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>:
>> In preparation for the end of voting, I tallied votes, but was unc= ertain how to record the votes for Craig and Ali.
>>
>> Craig voted for "everybody else on the ballot=E2=80=9D. Given= the timing of the vote, I would be inclined to interpret that =E2=80=93 us= ing lojbab=E2=80=99s list =E2=80=93 as:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Arkadii Balandin (gleki)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Robert LeChevalier (lojbab)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 And Rosta
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Karen Stein
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 guskant
>>
>> Ali voted for =E2=80=9Ceveryone currently on the ballot=E2=80=9D. = By the time of the vote, Ali and Curtis had declared themselves candidates;= guskant might not be a candidate at this point, according to her intention= to decline nomination in the case that there were more than seven candidat= es. Alex Burka had also received votes, but had not accepted nomination. Ac= cordingly, I would be inclined to interpret Ali=E2=80=99s vote as:
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Arkadii Balandin (gleki)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Curtis Franks
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Ali Sajid Imani
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Robert LeChevalier (lojbab)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Riley Martinez-Lynch (mukti)
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 And Rosta
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Karen Stein
>>
>
> Miles Forster (selpa'i) had already received four (4) votes before=
> Ali's vote. Alex Burka (durka42) neither declined nor accepted
> nomination, but Selpa'i accepted nomination just after Ali's v= ote.
> Sorry for interruption but it's for clarification.

Given my clarification of voting, which included the possibility of
"write-in" votes for those not on the ballot, I would have to rul= e that
any votes for someone before they declared themselves candidates would
be "write-ins" for people not on the ballot, and that those peopl= e were
not then "on the ballot".=C2=A0 That is in fact how I was interpr= eting them
at the time.

I am unsure what the status is for those people who declared candidacy
after voting started.=C2=A0 Remember that I had called for candidates and nominations more than a week before, and had extended the time for
making nominations.=C2=A0 If I hadn't been running the meeting so slowl= y, for
my own benefit, I would probably have to rule all declarations of
candidacy as being merely an indication that they would accept a writein election, and not that they were in any way "on the ballot".=C2= =A0 As it is,
I'll be lax and allow all those who spoke up to be considered "on = the
ballot" after they spoke up, for purposes of interpreting their votes.=

Others can interpret things differently - in particular, I defer to
guskant, craig, and etc who allowed for conditional candidacy to decide
for themselves whether to accept election, if they have the votes when
the voting is over.=C2=A0 But they are all "on the ballot".

lojbab




_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@loj= ban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-membe= rs
--001a1134c1f646f730052d7e72c6-- --===============5658552246545381979== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============5658552246545381979==--