POST-AGM ANALYSIS Notes from a meeting to capture the lessons learned from the 1995 Annual General Meeting and election of Board members, Monday, 3 April 1995, 7:30 - 10:30 pm Prepared by: Lisa K. Donnelly (am412) Edited by: Garth Graham (aa127) ATTENDING: Ian Allen Matthew Darwin Rosaleen Dickson Lisa Donnelly Garth Graham Miranda Gray Richard Taylor AGENDA LIST: 1. Do we continue to receive proxy votes? 2. Recruitment 3. Preparing candidates 4. Timeline and motions from the floor 5. AGM task descriptions 6. Number and type of newsgroups 7. Software issues and voting security 8. Refining AGM software and documentation into a package for use by others 9. By-law changes for 1995 1. Do we continue to receive proxy votes? * Information: We received 0 proxy ballots in 1994 and received 2 proxy ballots in 1995 * Options discussed: a)Abolish all together b)Allow more voting time c)look for a software solution * Recommendation: Software solution, particularly related to voting on motions, is complex and not completely secure. We are undecided - OK for now, and perhaps not sufficient "problem" to bother revisiting. 2. Active recruitment of Board candidates * Information: There is concern over the appearance and possible mis-interpretation of giving a rubber stamp to an "official" slate of candidates. Active, qualified persons are desirable but some present felt that recruitment can be done subtly and informally. * Options discussed: Have a formal Board nominating committee or have the recruiting done in a grass roots method. * Recommendation: Discussion divided on the need and mode of active recruitment. No conclusion - should be revisited by the Board. 3. Preparing candidates for electioneering methods and the realities of the campaign * Information: Four candidates withdrew from the 1995 AGM. At least one of them mentioned a lack of knowledge about NCF and/or the complex and time consuming process of on-line campaigning. * Options discussed: a. Include a menu item in the AGM area that points to the re-designed "About NCF" area (ie create pointers to where the info on what NCF does and how it does it is kept) b. Have a meeting for all candidates prior to the confirmations. This would be a briefing meeting and they would receive Board manuals. Time and place should be posted when the menus open. c. Candidates names should be posted as they are confirmed and individual campaigning should begin at that point. * Recommendation: Implement items a, b and c for 1996. 4. Time line and motions from the floor * Information: a) The activities and preparation for the 1995 AGM were rushed and stressful for the volunteers immediately involved. b) Some members are not happy with the decision for no motions from the floor and believe the process can be refined to achieve a middle ground. c) By-law changes passed at this AGM affect motions from the floor. * Options discussed: a. Announce the AGM and the need for candidates in December, prior to the Board meeting. In addition, clarify the type of motions members can bring forward, the process for doing so, and the expectations members should have under the by-laws for a board response. b. At the December Board meeting it must be decided how we handle member questions and motions. If any motions have already been received we must look at them for viability. c. In the second week of January the membership should be reminded again and a discussion group created for members to bring motions to the Board. Someone must be assigned to monitor this group and bring all key issues to the Board for consideration and response. In addition, that person should assist members in drafting motions. d. The AGM should be on the January Board agenda, AGM task descriptions completed and volunteer positions should be filled. Questions or motions from the floor should have been compiled for consideration for AGM inclusion by the Board. As a general practise, the Board should actively negotiate draft wording of motions that positively advance understood NCF priorities, but they should not stop a member motion from going forward. * Recommendations: a)The AGM should be on the Board agenda for December, January and February. b)In light of the guide and time lines the Board should revisit how to handle the 1996 AGM motions from the floor. 5.AGM Task Descriptions * Information: We're learning that staging a good AGM is a complex task. One volunteer ended up doing a great deal of work in bridging gaps between responsibilities. It is important to clarify roles and tasks and to distribute the work load. Last minute confusion resulted due to lack of a declared chair of the AGM process. * Options discussed: Break the tasks into clear roles and recruit people for each by January at the latest. * Recommendations: A lengthy discussion of what actually occurs showed that we need 7 sets of tasks to cover everything!! 1. Menu maintainer: Turns on menus and adapts as needed. Installs candidates documents. Installs Annual reports. 2. Elections Return Officer: Ensures the readiness of voting methods and procedures. Validates nominated candidates as well as their first and second nominator. Opens and closes ballot box and reports vote results. This is a position that requires impartiallity in order to demonstrate and ensure fair and open voting procedures. 3. General AGM FAQ person: Monitors the general discussion and answers questions related to meeting and elections process and history. 4. Board FAQ and motions Preparer: monitors and replies to NCF board and policy questions or issues in the AGM area. Prepares the motions for the AGM. 5. AGM chairperson: All task volunteers and staff report to this person for coordination of AGM activities. Per the By-laws, this is the President of the Board. The President may also declare another person to act in this capacity (for example, when the President is running for office). 6. Vote counting/software person: Programs, sets-up, activates and deactivates the vote counting software. 7. Proxy person: Posts proxy process information and receives and processes all requests. 6. Number and type of newsgroups * Information: The candidates discussion area was so overly busy that it was called a barrier to being informed by some members. In general, the present structure of AGM information and discussion groups was daunting to some members. Also, the existing structure does not make it easy for discussion participants to distinguish candidates from general members, nor does it help candidates to clarify thier positions on issues clearly and easily. The reality of campaigning is, "be on-line every four hours or you'll be swamped!" * Options discussed: 1. Give candidates a suggested template to fill out so there is consistent and concise information available on them 2. Have one general, unmoderated AGM discussion group which is open to all members (and candidates if they wish) and available for discussion of all motions and issues. 3. Have a candidates forum that is structured as a closed list with a candidates alias. only Candidates may post in the actual discussion area. Questions and comments from the floor are addressed to a 'candidates' alias which distributes it to all nominated persons. Following a particular thread would allow members to easily compare candidate responses. * Recommendation: Adopt the above options for the 1996 AGM 6. Software issues and voting security: * Information: The 'change vote' option gives the System Administrator access to the voting and proprietary information of the AGM. As a goal for the future, we should build toward voting software that is totally secret. A software solution, and the time to evolve it, may be more difficult then continuing to have the Board give responsibility to a trusted staff member. -None the less, the voting software, as an example of a practical tool for electronic democracy, should be given more thought and development: the real security issue may be the cancellation of votes or the ability to produce multiple votes (vote forging by hackers). * Options discussed: Keep a list of people who voted. Develop a plan in the event that the election and vote count is contested or compromised. Develop a software solution for creating a "box" for totally secret ballots. * Recommendation: Have a second meeting (Approx June) which deals with software issues such as security, secrecy, user interface, redundancy and back-up votes. 8. Refining the AGM software and documentation into a package for use by others * Information: We are setting a precedent in practical methods for electronic democracy by having our on-line AGMs. Ideally we should make a this into a package for use by other organizations and Free-Nets. * Options: Get a volunteer to draft up all the necessary documentation. Get a volunteer to develop and refine the software. * Recommendations: Revisit the development of the AGM documentation and software refinement in June with the hope that we can prepare this into a package or product for use by other FreeNets by the end of this year. Richard Taylor will volunteer as our software verification person in the event that we package a system for distribution to other FreeNets (he is also going to talk to a colleague in the development and verification of safety critical software). 9. By-law changes for 1995 There was an inconclusive discussion of By-law related issues including: motions from members, change in procedures for changing the By-laws, and NCF policy on bi-lingual menus as it applies to the AGM.