Off Topic Forums > Forums Gatherings

Proposed voting rules for future AMG's

(1/8) > >>

mitch777:
Hello Forum Members,

First I'd like to say that I am looking forward to AMG San Diego! :) While it was not my first choice, the location is secondary to meeting everyone. It is the people of these forums that began this great annual event to meet one another and remember those who we have lost.

Next I would like to make clear is that my proposed voting rules are in the interest of fairness to all. No sour grapes here in the least. Really.

Lastly, I would like to say that I purposely waited to post this until after the voting was closed for AMG 2014. Didn't want to upset the apple cart so to speak already in progress.

So...
My understanding is that this has been discussed by many members over the years privately but nobody has put forth a proposal so I'm taking the chance of getting beat up by bringing up a voting rule change. Please try to be gentle. I'm a frail old pozzie and bruise easily.

1. I propose to restrict voting to HIV+ members only with the exception of an adult care giver voting for a child.

I am by no means suggesting restricting who can attend.

My reasoning for this is when spouses or friends vote in tandem with a poz member it creates a voting block that is inherently unfair. It also seems that there are those who don't lend support to others on the forums and only post when it comes to voting. Pretty easy to see by looking at posting histories.

The question is a matter of fairness to active members of these forums. Should I have my hubby and friends become member only to cast a vote for my destination of choice? I think not. Then it would become a "who can round up the most people" thing.

It might not be an issue if there were several hundred people voting but with 25 or 30 total votes a "voting block" of friends and family can have a strong impact on the results.

I would also like to suggest that the next posting for voting preferences for future AMG locations, a statement should be included that says' "Please refrain from voting if you have absolutely no intentions on attending AMG". I understand peoples plans can change and I am not making that reference.

Just a suggestion.

Sincerely,
m.

PS- I'm looking forward to meeting everyone in San Diego, members, spouses, friends, and family. :)

Lou-ah-vull:
Difficult to enforce and define, but understandable.  Over the years since we started the "selection" of the site for the AMG has always generated controversy. 

When we moved to the election process, this helped somewhat but as you noted the process was somewhat affected by voting from persons who were not really going to attend the event or those with a casual, but not serious interest in the event.  Again, not easy to identify or enforce if we wanted some kind of rule.

Maybe the best process would be to use a voting process to identify three cities and then have a pre-selected committee of three active, participating, posting Forum members (and preferably at least two who have consistently attended the AMG or at least tried to attend) investigate the three choices, arrive at a decision and then announce the site.  This would allow some exploration of possible hotel choices as well as date choices. 

Again, no process is perfect and this current one has worked better than any other we have tried...but it might help boost attendance at AMG.

I should quickly add that I have enjoyed EVERY AMG I have attended (I have been all of them with the exception of Toronto and London) regardless of the method of selection and regardless of controversy.

Gary

mitch777:
Gary,

I certainly agree that no process is perfect. I'm just not sure that I agree that limiting voting to HIV+ folks would be an issue. Enforceable? Easy.

As far as preventing people voting with no plans to attend... that, I agree would not be enforceable but just thought a statement at the opening would help.

Leaving the final choice to 3-5 individuals could create even more problems IMHO. The key words that you used were "active members" and that is why I proposed what I did.

If the best process used so far is the current one as you stated, I am only trying to tweek it with one additional voting eligibility requirement. I was simply trying to suggest a step that might make the process more equitable to the active members of the forums. I believe these forums are about support and active members are the lifeblood. Without them, the forums would cease to exist and AMG with it.

I too look forward to what ever destination is chosen. The experience of Chicago in meeting fellow members will be forever remembered with fondness. I cherished every moment and every person that I met. I'm looking forward to many more.

m.

Basquo:
I'm against limiting voting to HIV+ forum members. My husband has attended several AMGs and is not a forum member, but if he was, I'd like for his vote to count. Chances are good we wouldn't vote for the same location anyway ;)

I can think of 2 other non-poz members whose vote should count should they choose to vote. One has attended 4 AMGs in the past and the other I'd like to meet in person should the opportunity arise.

mitch777:

--- Quote from: Basquo on November 09, 2013, 08:29:33 PM ---I'm against limiting voting to HIV+ forum members. My husband has attended several AMGs and is not a forum member, but if he was, I'd like for his vote to count. Chances are good we wouldn't vote for the same location anyway ;)

I can think of 2 other non-poz members whose vote should count should they choose to vote. One has attended 4 AMGs in the past and the other I'd like to meet in person should the opportunity arise.

--- End quote ---

I get that Basqou but I don't agree. If those who have expressed discontent with the voting process as it stands remain silent I will be happy to abide by the way it's been and will no longer will listen to further complaints. No big deal. Just trying to help animosity building.

My husband is not a member of the forums either. He attended with me last year.  Your point of contention  about those non-poz people that you wish to meet is not dismissed by any means. Should they vote? I think not but they are more than welcome to attend and I would like to meet them in person myself.

This is not about restricting attendance but allowing a fair vote for active members. This is not about the past. It's about going forward in fairness to those who contribute to the forums.

I really hope this thread does not become a battle of alliances, but rather a discussion of how we can eliminate negativity in a kind and thoughtful way.

Everyone that mentions your name has had nothing but love spoken. I can't wait to meet you and you husband myself. I hope the same holds true to you. We are all in this together.

EDIT: I'm also not shy about calling it like it is if someone steps over the line on my behalf.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version