<html><body>
<p><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Precedent is not sufficient. It is also important where they were incorporated. There is also precedent that an organization dropped STV on the advice of counsel because of their point of incorporation. <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Sent from my iPhone<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> On Oct 11, 2013, at 12:43 PM, "Monty Taylor" <mordred@inaugust.com> wrote:<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> On 10/11/2013 01:27 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> ><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> ><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > On 10/11/2013 01:24 PM, James E. Blair wrote:<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> Monty Taylor <mordred@inaugust.com> writes:<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >>> Hey all!<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >>><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >>> If you want to learn more about this from wikipedia, you should check out:<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >>><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >>> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_systems#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29</a><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >>><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >>> The TC/PTL elections use Schulze. STV would be IRV in this table.<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> Browsing the lists of election system users on wikipedia, a couple of US<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> tax-exempt orgs stand out:<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> LOPSA: A 501(c)(3) using Meek's STV<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> <a href="http://governance.lopsa.org/LOPSA_Bylaws#Election_of_Directors">http://governance.lopsa.org/LOPSA_Bylaws#Election_of_Directors</a><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> SPI: A 501(c)(3) using Schulze<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> <a href="http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2003/2003-01-06.wta.1/">http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2003/2003-01-06.wta.1/</a><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> It seems unlikely that we would be breaking new ground as a non-profit<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> >> with either of these.<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> ><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > I believe this is an excellent point and excellent precedent.<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > Considering that Delaware law allows us to explicitly define our voting<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > mechanism (which makes the Delaware portion itself moot) - I would think<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > that existing precedent of non-profit boards using Schultze should give<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > us the ground cover we need to be more confident on both stated concerns<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > around use of Schultze.<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> ><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > That that has been in effect for them since 2003 and should be AMPLE<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> > time for issues to have arisen.<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> As a followup, I have found that the XBMC Foundation, which is an Open<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> Source 501c3 registered in the state of Delaware uses Condorcet for<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> their elections.<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> IANAL - but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that perhaps there<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> actually is precedent for us to use the voting mechanism that we want to<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> use.<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> Monty<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> <br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> _______________________________________________<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> Elections-committee mailing list<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> Elections-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections-committee</a><br>
</font><font size="2" face="sans-serif">> <br>
</font></body></html>