Dear Anika, dear IC members,
Thank you for the valuable work you put into updating the constitution and catering it to the needs of virtual/hybrid realities of scientific communities.
In general, I support the endeavor. In detail, I like to point to two things that attracted my attention:
1) Regarding positional voting: In case the members decide to change the voting accordingly, I want to point out that positional voting is a generic term that can be set up differently. In 10.4(a) you suggest “positional voting (to be set out in detail by the charity trustees)”.
In the cover letter, you illustrate positional voting in a specific format, depending on two parameters: a) there are 4 open IC positions b) you credit the positions with a linear progression (position 1 = n (number of open positions), position 1+x = (n-x))
As there are also different ways of crediting positions, I would suggest explicitly fixing the intended standard way of crediting (and a rule on how to decide on ties) in the constitution.
Whereas I understand that the IC needs some flexibility, e.g. in cases where another number of positions than 4 is to be voted on, it would be better to communicate the intended standard use of positional voting for reasons of clarity.
2) Electronic voting: 11.7 specifies electronic voting procedures in a new way. Democratic voting should follow a few principles, amongst others: 1) Everybody should be able to vote and be informed about the procedures 2) only those who are allowed to vote should be able to vote 3) every voter should be able to vote only once 4) voter information and votes need to be kept separated (votes are secret). The old way of email voting was very complicated, but it respected these basic principles fully.
The new specification is very explicit on numbers 1 and 4. However, the regulations are not clear on numbers 2 and 3.
In detail, 11.7 (c) reads: “Online votes must be collected anonymously on an online platform designated for this purpose”. This emphasizes (4, separation of voter information and votes), but is not explicit on the matter of the fact that the online solution has to make sure that voters are identified as being allowed to vote (see 2), and also the online solution has to verify that the voter did not already vote (see 3).
I could imagine that you perhaps used the expression “online platform DESIGNATED FOR THIS PURPOSE” to express these needs, but in the context of the sentence “this” might only refer to anonymous. So, technically, according to the current suggestion, you could post an open link to an anonymous survey on Google Forms, which would serve the requirement “anonymous”. But obviously not the requirements which are technically spoken related to the correct and trustful authentification of the voters.
I would suggest reworking 11.7 and making explicit all requirements that the online solution has to meet for a proper election, especially regarding the principles 2) and 3) as sketched above.
I hope these considerations are useful for the further development of the changes to the constitution.
Best wishes – Many thanks for your valuable work throughout these challenging times
Anke (Lindmeier)
P.S.: I posted a similar reply yesterday but it is not visible anymore. Could you please check whether the settings of this forum are correct?
