FRA elections 2009

[geeza]

I completely agree with Jonnos post above, its great to have so many people willing show an interest in moving things forward which is something that has been lacking generally. Note not a dig at the current committee, but the general lack of voting and general interest in the governing of the hobby.

But I am very aware that too many cooks can spoil things. I would suggest that we give the above list a try for a year, maybe less depending on how things work. And reassess the situation then, if it works well then make a permanant change to the consitution.

It is not up to the committee to decide if it is working or not, but it should be selfevident from peoples general attuide towards the FRA, which recently has been distrusting. Hopefully with better communication to all members this can change.

[andy_kane]

For us all, define general lack of voting?

[geeza]

Ok, last time I stood for election there were at least 8 memberships in my region, only 3 voted including the two candiates.

[mightymouse]

Mike - perhaps you misunderstood my last post, we have altered the make-up of the committee and have to change the constitution accordingly. This will have to be approved or disapproved by a vote of the membership. The full extent of the constitution changes have yet to be finalised and it is up to the new committee to decide on the changes and how the vote for approval is organised. Quite simple, and fully compatible with the current constitution. But nothing will happen until the first meeting in april, so you will have to be patient, and you will have your chance to raise any issues there.

Ed - nobody was more surprised than us at the lack of votes from your area.

To echo Pete Lales comment, he can now work with me, where previously he would have to stand against me. Surely this has got to be for the better?

Trev

[craig_colliass]

My limited experience in these matters brings me to the conclusion that out of the total number of reps there will be 60% still active and working in that job in 12 months time. Due to all kinds of factors not least the credit crunch!
I am very happy there are so many people of such quality and experience, going to be running things at the FRA.
Remember the Committee golden ratio one mouth two ears! :wink:

[gilbert]

Hi everyone. I thought it about time I joined the discussion. Re number of reps. I agree with the sentiment that the more the better. It will be easier to get a balanced view.and should prevent most of the current moans about bias. As for voting the usual practice is that in the event of a tie the chairman gets the casting vote. I assume the same would apply to the F.R.A.

[pressure]

In the case of the FRA the chairman votes with the rest of the committee, if there is a tie the president may vote to break the tie. I believe this is the only occasion that the president is allowed to vote.

[gilbert]

Thanks Mike, trust the F.R.A. to do it different. Still doesnt cause a problem with odd or even number of reps though. as long as we get to play with our robots, all is fine with the world!!???

[tim]

Jonno, apologies for the somewhat delayed response for input, I have been away on holiday

My view is that all the people who have put themselves forward would do a good job and that we do need to increase the numbers involved from those we currently have.

I am fully supportive of our move away from regional representation as it enables us to have more good active roboteers from areas such as the Midlands (with Pete being a good example in point of someone who has long been keen to get involved but has not been able to).

However I do have some concerns that we may end up with too big a committee, as Karoline said earlier in this thread the meetings can and do go on for some time whilst everyone has their valuable input and therefore more people could mean we do not manage to deal with all the necessary issues as we could end up with longer discussion on each one. I believe it was for this reason that the constitution originally limited the total to ten.

I also believe that the community should be given the opportunity to vote on whether they want each of us who have put ourselves forward to represent them. After all if as an individual we do not have the support of the community then should we be representing the community. It was for this reason that when drafting the election rules I proposed that a vote for and against each candidate should be held regardless of the number who put themselves forward.

Tim

[gilbert]

Tim
While I can understand your concerns over having too many reps to get anything agreed, If it is felt that there are too many standing, and ten would be enough, surely it would be better to allow roboteers to vote for (up to) the ten they want. That way anyone who didn't have enough support would fail to get elected
I think that voting 'against' would not be helpful in bringing the roboteering comunity closer together.

What time scales are we now looking at to get all this election stuff resolved and activated?