Thank you very much for answering my question. I'm with you; I agree that
this is a very important vote, and I hope that everyone participates.

Best regards,

*Jason Bengtson*


*http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ <http://www.jasonbengtson.com/>*

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> That isn't a dumb question, Jason; no, we have not set up a minimum
> percentage of voters, in part because “membership” in Code4Lib is such an
> amorphous thing. We definitely do not have 3500 active members, no matter
> what our listserv subscription looks like. But we do get close to 500
> attendees at conferences, not all of whom are the same from year to year,
> so I will be disappointed in us if we don’t get at LEAST that many votes.
>
> Speaking purely practically, I hope that we will see enough votes come in
> that nobody tries to argue for invalidating the election results because of
> it. I will be furious if all of this work was for naught.
>
> Please vote.
>
> Best,
> Coral
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jason Bengtson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > I apologize if this is a dumb question, or something I've just missed or
> > forgotten, but is there a minimum percentage vote tally required to
> certify
> > a result?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > *Jason Bengtson*
> >
> >
> > *http://www.jasonbengtson.com/ <http://www.jasonbengtson.com/>*
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would be leery of interpreting abstention in that way. Similar logic
> > has
> > > been employed in some states to prevent referendums involving tax
> > increases
> > > to be passed.
> > >
> > > My sense is that the low vote total reflects that people understand
> this
> > is
> > > a serious issue requiring an informed decision. Those who don't have
> the
> > > time or background to fully digest what each option means might well
> hang
> > > back rather than unintentionally indicate a preference that could lead
> to
> > > serious problems.
> > >
> > > In any case, people who feel the current system is fine and don't want
> to
> > > pursue alternatives can affirmatively choose that we keep things as
> they
> > > are.
> > >
> > > kyle
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Oct 24, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Just bumping this, to remind people to vote. We have 129 votes
> cast,
> > > so
> > > > >> far, and I suspect more people are interested in the outcome of
> this
> > > > than
> > > > >> have voted, yet.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/K5MWGNC
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, please vote. Otherwise, I don’t think we — the community --
> will
> > > > get enough input to make a sound decision.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here’s a radical idea. There are essentially three choice in the
> vote:
> > > >
> > > >   1. Do nothing
> > > >   2. Incorporate
> > > >   3. Partner with fiscal agent
> > > >
> > > > There are approximately 3,500 people in our community. Each non-vote
> > > could
> > > > be counted as a vote for #1. If so, then we are well on track for
> doing
> > > > nothing. 8-D  —Earache
> > > >
> > >
> >
>