RE: Multiple votes from Bill Wall
We agree and think his intended (second) vote should count given his statements about misunderstanding the ballot and the quick follow-up after realizing his mistake.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Andy Balinsky (balinsky)
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:44 PM
To: Christey, Steven M.
Cc: Wall, William (wwall); cve-editorial-board-list
Subject: Re: Multiple votes from Bill Wall
While I realize that changing the rules during a vote is irregular, the original rule to me seemed to be without any purpose. If it had a purpose, it seems that a misunderstanding of the ballot should be a stronger purpose than whatever original purpose there was.
I can understand the purpose if you have >1 vote from different individuals in an org. Then the rule avoids having to litigate who is the legitimate rep for that org. But in the case of a misunderstanding, it seems an unnecessary restriction.
Maybe in the end, it will not matter, but if option B wins by 1 vote, based on a misunderstanding, I think the board will have to revisit the decision.
Just my thoughts.
On May 16, 2013, at 2:54 PM, "Christey, Steven M." <email@example.com> wrote:
> Today you sent two separate ballots to the Board list. Your first ballot, which was valid, seemed to prefer Option B, but then 2 hours later, you sent a DIFFERENT ballot that switched to Option A, and you changed your reasons.
> According to the voting rules, the first valid vote from a Board member is used and cannot be reversed:
> 8. No changes to a vote will be accepted; no reclama.
> While these rules are pretty clear, it would be useful to be clear about what your real intention was, and why the switch occurred.
> Thank you,