Um.. which topic? I'm assuming the first one since that's the one I had a complaint about, so I'll base my reply on that. No.. just no. I don't know why this topic was raised to begin with, because I wasn't there, but this is what the topic say in Spectatre's forum post
Not to sound blunt, but everyone in attendance was in agreement that this was a good idea the discussion was mostly circular and the scribe forumulated the current wording by the discussion that was created - they also agreed that the current nomination system is fatally flawed as is. Furthermore, not allowing all zedlings to vote makes very little sense - we already open server votes (i.e., ones regarding updates like updating to 1.13 and updating to 1.14) to be open to all zedlings. In addition, most real-world elections both allow candidates to add themselves to the ballot, and allow the entire population to vote. It seems to work, I don't know why we can't adopt a similar policy.
So, it is a council matter being voted on on the forum. Not for non-members of the council. Why would that be un-democratic? And my question remains, how to we solve the potential non-member voting?
This was a totally different topic, not the one pertaining to non-members of the council being able to vote on nomination. Please note when I say "vote" in this paragraph that it pertains to
regulation votes, not nomination votes. This was just so absent council members could be able to have a say on votes rather than it being passed in the same meeting where some of the council members would be unaware of the change until it had already taken place. The vote would still occur during the meeting, the absent members would just be able to cast their ballot ahead of time. If it so happens that the vote changes in the meeting where the vote was originally scheduled to take place, then the topic is (again) sent to the pre-agenda, pending vote, so absent members can alter their votes accordingly.
The one and the most significant objection I have against this, is the same as I had for the topic as a whole. The process must be swift. I don't think anyone wanna spend a majority of the meeting filtering through discussions of whether someone is worthy or not (that is what we are judging them on, by comparing they Ayes to the Nays). That stuff works for forums were people can write whenever they have the time in the day, where dialogs can continue over weeks. We have a fairly limited time slot and a lot of people from different time zones. Let's not strain the time limit further by pointless debate over simple things like this. It must be swift, easy to understand and under no circumstance generate debate whether an individual should or should not be part of the council. That, If anything, reflects poorly on the council.
The process is certainly not swift as it is, nor does it make much sense. If we're allowing zedlings to nominate themselves, I believe we need a nay. There wouldn't be "filtering through discussions of whether someone is worthy or not," there would be a simple aye or nay, and there wouldn't be any discussion other than that. If they get too many nays, they don't make it.
If they get enough ayes, they make it. I have, personally, been in at least a half dozen organizations that do ayes to nays and it isn't done on a written forum - it is done there and now and works without hassle. The ayes and nays are there to prevent discussion, if anything - you don't need to give a reason, you just need to vote yes or no.
I apologize if I was too blunt during any part of this message, I just felt I needed to clarify what was unclear and reform my opinion.