Marcus Steeplechase wrote:Today at 10:53 am Marcus Steeplechase

Personally, I want to get my Pride torture regime completed as soon as possible. Why another general election? Because there is no fundamental understanding of representative democracy.

In this particular case, a voting tie meant that the entire body of Second Pride --the membership, the ambassadors, and the elected committee-- could not reach a consensus on Treasurer. In other words, the Second Pride organization showed no preference for either candidate.

In cases of no preference, the vote should move to the elected committee of Second Pride. This is the group that must work with the Treasurer on a consistent, often daily, basis. Without a preference from the organization, the elected committee must have the opportunity to decide which candidate is the better fit with the direction and goals of SP2010. To deny your elected committee this right indicates a basic apprehension of the elected committee, and a misunderstanding of democratic principles.

The fact that Rimpoche himself advocated for another general election shows how badly the SP2010 committee wants to avoid criticism, remain transparent, and win trust. The flaw in this approach is that the Second Pride culture does not seem to be based on trust, but on power and posturing. It does not matter what you do in Second Pride; the real test of endurance is that your public service simply got noted. You sat in a Chair. You got to make some fabulous decisions.

Geez, why is it regular members (who can't vote for whatever reason) in Second Pride can't reply to some of these threads? Anyway, Marcus is correct in saying that, those eligible to vote, did not voice a preference. At least, it seems that way. However, I disagree with his suggestion that the elected Committee should now be allowed to pick the Treasurer. If that's the case, I don't believe there's any doubt who the Committee would select. Isn't that sort of how we got to this point? I also would like Marcus to better define what he means by "better fit."

Gordon Nadezda wrote:However, I disagree with his suggestion that the elected Committee should now be allowed to pick the Treasurer. If that's the case, I don't believe there's any doubt who the Committee would select. Isn't that sort of how we got to this point?"

No. How we got to "this point" has more to do with the current 2010 committee not standing up for their own rights as elected members of Second Pride. We decided to go the route of a general election to encourage an open and honest process, and also out of fear. We believed our initiatives were being undermined by the very organization we work for.

There was no precedent for holding this type of election during a Pride year. Last year, for example, my own Events committee saw a turn over of at least FOUR chairs. There is no record of an election being held for any of them.

In January 2009, the Marketing chair put in his resignation, and was replaced. There is no record of an election.

Also in January last year, the Security chair quit and, according to the minutes, the elected committee voted to accept her resignation and replace her with someone else. Yet in June, this same person was Security Chair. Again, no record of an election or a return to assignment

Back to my original thread: prodded into a general election, but nevertheless feeling good about it; we thought that more than 50% of the organization would support our initial decision. This turned out not to be the case. So once again we enter the cycle of distrust and mind-numbing repetitive gestures designed to cover up the fact that no one really does much of anything in Second Pride but yap.

I am racking my brains trying to figure out what the 2010 committee did that would warrant such distrust, and I come up empty-handed. From the beginning, we have met resistance for any sort of change.

None of these positions were as sensitive as this one and none were done without sending a notice for candidates first. Nor without letting people speak at a meeting before decisions were made, unlike your first vote of this type this year.

Secondly as it was announced each time, no member opposed as they would have been able to do if they wished. Unlike this previous vote was contested.

Perhaps the difference today is that members feel that it is in their interest to watch things more closely than before.

First, I want to say that Marcus is one of the hardest working supporters of Second Pride in Second Life, and I salute him for it! However, his post deserves and requires a response. On numerous occassions, I've asked why the Committee didn't give unregistered voters a chance to register to vote BEFORE this special election. I've never received a clear answer, but have received numerous statements citing Charter deficiencies and fears that candidates would "play the system." The whole process is shrouded in fog.

Permit me to paraphrase and/or repeat some of Marcus' statements. He said there was no record of an election being held when last year's Events Committee had to replace its Chair on four occassions. In January 2009, the Marketing Chair resigned, and was replaced with no record of an election. In January 2008, the Security Chair quit, and was replaced, but in June 2008, that same person was still Security Chair......no record of an election.

Is there any wonder why there may be distrust of ANY sitting Committee, not specifically the current one. No one in their right mind is going to waste time and money working with an organization who's Committee can so easily conceal its actions.

Marcus also said that the Committee thought that more than 50% of the organization would support [the Committee's] initial decision. I presume he is still talking about the decision to allow general members to participate in the vote. The Committee may have expected more than half of the organization to support the decision, and I for one absolutely support it. However, consider this....out of 217 registered Second Pride website members, only 36 were/are eligible to vote. And, I am under the impression that the Committee felt no need to open up voter registration prior to the election.

If you want want new people to join and actively participate (and not just yap!), things are going to have to change and it may not be the kind of change the current Committee and/or Ambassadors want.

Zack Preminger wrote:Perhaps the difference today is that members feel that it is in their interest to watch things more closely than before.

Gordon Nadezda wrote:If you want want new people to join and actively participate (and not just yap!), things are going to have to change and it may not be the kind of change the current Committee and/or Ambassadors want.

The biggest fault I can find with the current SP2010 committee is that we tend to be impatient for change. When we saw there were no elections last year for any of the six chair positions that became vacant, we probably assumed too much by deciding on an internal vote for this go-around. Our decision certainly back-fired on us, in the sense that it helped sow seeds of discontent where no offense was meant.

We should probably not have been this naive, because we already knew we were under a microscope. Each of our actions was being questioned, chewed, and spat out to the rest of the organization. It's no wonder that feelings of distrust and suspicion now permeate the entire Second Pride. This was of deliberate design, and here is my guess why this is so:

SP2010 believes the organization has matured enough that it should carry some permanence in Second Life.

This was not true of other years, if you examine something as easy as group name. Each year before 2010, the group had to change, from "Second Pride 2007" to "SP 2008" blah blah. How crazy is this? It meant that after each festival, all the hard work accomplished by the particular Pride year was lost, since a new group never started with the same membership. 2009 ended their Pride year with over 500 members, but when 2010 rolled around, only 85 were captured in the new group. Our solution here was to simply take the date off the group, so next year's committee will not have to start the membership drive again from scratch.

This elementary move may not have been popular with some members of SP, who see no real reason for a membership. Again, power and posturing play an important element in the history of this organization, and overtures to democracy appear as threatening an essentially elitist structure.

SP2010 believes that the organization can and should support (and even lead) year-round initiatives that are germane to the LGBT community in Second Life.

We've started talks with the Lindens regarding a portal. We're also talking to LL and others on an LGBT health initiative. For some members of the organization, we are the group that isn't "sticking to the knitting." The knitting being the festival. But please be reminded that our Presiding Chair was elected exactly for the reasons outlined here: to change the direction of the organization, reach out to the community, and provide a more complete activities calendar. And yes, of course the Festival -and it will be a damn good one!

You can read Rim's candidate speech here:

http://www.secondpride.com/second-pride-2010-archives-f16/candidate-rimpoche-kiama-t340.htm

Rimpoche Kiama was elected chairman with 60% of the votes, and only 20 avatars actually voted --in an organization that had over 500 members at the time.

SP2010 believes that Second Pride should be a grassroots initiative.

This is where the major political lines are being drawn, and this is the reason things appear to move slowly. But consider this: Events and Building committees each have 10-15 members. The committee members themselves hold position, work on initiatives, and collaborate with the chair and the rest of the elected committee. Again, this is very different from earlier reincarnations of Second Pride, especially since this is only September.

And it is not the final step for 2010. Keo tells me there will be a membership drive, once we get the particular nastiness at hand solved.

I can go on --you know I can go on-- but let me mention one other thing. The 2010 committee does not always agree on everything. Even this post -not everyone on 2010 may agree with all my rambling points listed above (and for that I apologize to my fellow committee members and welcome any corrections). But the 2010 committee is not in disarray. We are not broken.

And we pretty much share the same vision of Second Pride and strive to make it coherent for all concerned.

For the record the permanent group was created by SP09, so we did realise that the past method we inherited from SP07 was not a good one and first of all this is about SP10... Why are you constantly doing research on previous festivals just to put other committees on trial, when if it wasn't for the efforts of those that have brought it up to be better today, you'd still be in the big mess it was back then.

I don't see a court, nor a judge here, so why are you putting so much effort in digging up incomplete information without asking for any explanations to clarify from the past chairs, instead of your interpretation of bits and pieces you seem to find here and there? Some of the things you mentionned are partially true only and you post it as if you've got the whole story.

I'm not sure what is the goal here.. Yes we all make mistakes, yes the transition from 2007 to 2009 was a hard and challenging work to accomplish, and yes we're glad that you continue to think of other ways to continue the improvement by looking forward... not looking back randomly taking a chunk of the big picture to begin some kind of trial.

How about focusing on the now and after?
Your projects for SP2010 are all great as far as I'm concerned... And no one is telling you to stop them or wants to stop you from making them happen. It is only that SP2010 doesn't seem to be enough, it seems you want to set the Second Pride name and organisation to be what your idea of it is... Well there is a whole group here that deserves a say too in these matters... But SP2010 is yours, no one is stopping you from focusing on that and keeping the focus mainly on that... That doesn't stop you from suggesting changes to the org which we'll all welcome I'm sure because they also seem to be great ideas as I previously said.. only for those you can't decide alone. It's simple really when you think of it.

Gordon Nadezda wrote:

SP10 Treasurer Vote Room wrote:
Today at 2:41 am Lemonodo Oh

Does the log show the last vote was after midnight? Please verify. I saw the same thing as Zack, and unfortunately that is inconclusive.

Today at 8:48 am Meatjockey Lederberg

And for those who are curious - I voted at 11:59 precisely. It was good to see that the poll was actually open til midnight.

I would think that there would be more concern over capturing the will of all the voting members would be more important than questioning the result based on a technicality. Is this approach what we might expect going forward, if Lemonodo is elected?

Again, congratulations to both!

Today at 9:22 am Lemonodo Oh

I agree with you completely on how important it is to capture your true will as a voter. This is Charter, not technicality. I and one other person saw a poll change on refresh at midnight. No one is willing to produce the logs. This is indicative of the kind of obscurity Lemonodo would not tolerate with your money. Only transparency, line items if needed, will do.

Since I'm not allowed to vote in this election, nor am I allowed to post in the special SP10 Treasurer Vote Room, this is my only option as a member. First, I consider Lemonodo's original question as perfectly reasonable (see above quotes from SP10 Treasurer Vote Room). Second, I am troubled by Meatjockey's response. I both like and respect MeatJockey, but it almost seems like he's campaigning for Lemonodo's opponent at a time when it just isn't appropriate. Third, I fully support transparency and would hope everyone else does the same.

Finally, please do not construe this as support for either candidate.

Gordon,

I understand how, given the context in which my comments were posted, they may have come across as "campaigning." Part of that context was that I had just rolled out of bed, so I was foggy at best.

I was surprised that there was such a debate over whether a vote (my vote, it turns out) was legitimate. Second Pride being the organization it is, it's not something I would have expected.

What disturbed ME was that Lemonodo validated this point in open forum by posting "Does the log show the last vote was after midnight? Please verify. I saw the same thing as Zack, and unfortunately that is inconclusive." (as if to say that if the log had shown my vote had been received at 12:01 it would have been disqualified.)

I think it's important for members of the committee to think on their feet, and to discern real issues rather than being swept up in the intrigue of the moment. I think the real issue was (and is) being fair and inclusive; not verifying the legitimacy of votes.

I obviously created a precedent of some kind by voting so close to cutoff. As an aside, I think it would be a wise choice to close the poll at midnight, rather than refreshing ones' browser. But that would have made it a lot less intriguing in the forums today ;{P

If I was campaigning, it was not on behalf of either candidate, it was on behalf of my vote Transparency is always a good thing, but to be honest, in this context I took that as campaigning, and chose not to acknowledge it.

It's funny. I know you and Lemonodo, and Eagle and most of the people who are posting in this forum in SL - and I LIKE the people from here that I know in there.

If it seems that I'm being critical - it's only because the organization is important to me. I just want a Second Pride that works. I am aware of one post that says something like 'Why don't you just put on the Festival like you're supposed to." So what do you do with that?

For my part, I promise to bring my Tiara polish to each and every meeting I attend.