January 2018 - gpca-votes

[Gpca-votes] Fwd: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures
by Sadie Fulton 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

The attached email is evidence of the new SGA administrators reaching out to the outgoing ones, requesting access and training. This is direct evidence against Nicole's claim that outreach was made in the other direction and refused. No response was ever received for this email. If the claim that Tim and Mike were willing to train the new SGA administrators back in September when the request was made is to hold any water henceforth, let's see your evidence. Sadie ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Laura Wells <laurawells510(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 11:34 Subject: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc(a)lists.cagreens.org> Cc: Tim Laidman <timlaidman(a)yahoo.com>, Brian Good <snug.bug(a)hotmail.com> *[This list of questions is going especially to long-time SGA Vote Administrators Mike Feinstein and Tim Laidman; to all CC members; and to Brian Good, a newly elected admin who is not on the CC.] * Hello all — Now that we have a roster of 5 new SGA Vote Administrators (Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells), and 2 alternates (Eric Brooks and Mike Goldbeck), we need to get trained and up-to-speed. Please reply with whatever help you can provide. Here is a starter list of questions that will allow us to create procedures, a process for gaining access to the system, and training needed by the incoming SGA Vote Administrators. The last question applies to almost all of the others: who performs each of the tasks now, and who can provide the new admins with access to each of the processes? (1) How is the list of SGA delegates updated? http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13 (2) How are SGA delegates added to the SGA email list, gpca-votes(a)cagreens.org (or gpca-votes(a)lists.cagreens.org)? (3) How are SGA delegates added to the SGA voting pages/voting system? (4) How do proposal pages get published on the website? (5) How do candidate lists get published on the website? How do candidate applications/bios get published and updated? (6) How are the SGA announcements set up? Announcements include the beginning of the discussion and voting periods, the upcoming end of the voting period, and the ending of the voting period. (7) How are the results announced for yes/no votes and for ranked choice votes? (8) Who does each of the above, and who can provide the new admins with access to each of the above? (9) What else should be included on this list of questions? NOTE that in researching the GP-US voting system, it appears that “Vote Administrators” are called “Floor Managers” and the job rotates among the Steering Committee members, with some duties performed by the Secretary of the Steering Committee. The system was described as a process of filling out (“plugging in”) the software forms online: checking boxes for kind of vote, discussion period, listing candidates; and pasting in proposals, background, resources required, references. It’s possible that the CA system, which apparently was originally based on the same system as the national, may have become more complicated over the years, but still do-able by people who are not necessarily highly technical. Thank you all. Laura Wells CC member and one of the newly-elected SGA Vote Administrators _______________________________________________ gpca-cc mailing list gpca-cc(a)lists.cagreens.org http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-cc_lists.cagreens.org

13 20

[Gpca-votes] State level Green Party
by Thomas Leavitt 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

The inability of this party, at a statewide level, to conduct itself in a functional fashion, without endless bickering, infighting, plotting and conspiracy mongering (justified and otherwise), over the last TWENTY PLUS YEARS, and clearly replicated on this thread, is exactly why so many sane and reasonable party members view engagement with the party at a non-local level with trepidation, and in many cases, as an act of masochism. This is why I have absolutely, regardless of my personal view of various parties and events, abstained from participation in recent votes since being placed on the SGA, and will continue to do so. This is why the biggest Green Party in the country, by numbers, in the biggest state, apparently operates on a budget which doesn't even amount to spare change by any rational standard... all this infighting is over literal pennies. City council candidates in Santa Cruz, a city of 50,000, raise more money for their campaigns than our entire state operates on (based on the figures I've seen). Things that should be of the highest urgency and priority, are left unattended. Look at our budget committee page, it says: "*Current Members (FY2013-2014 budget preparation)*" http://www.cagreens.org/committees/budget I'm sure it would be effortless to find additional examples. Regardless of what recent issues we've had, there is NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE for this page to be FIVE YEARS out of date. FIVE YEARS. Do you all realize how totally unprofessional and credibility destroying this is to all but the most motivated folks considering alternatives to the duopoly? How can any of us defend this type of performance and collective conduct? I've been formally involved with this party since I arrived in Santa Cruz in 1993, and registered since 1990. Tom Hayden sent me a postcard urging me to re-register as a Democrat when I did. I didn't. That's going on a quarter century. I've known some of you for almost that long, know parties on all sides of various internal divisions, I don't claim to be purely objective, but as someone who has deliberately tried to not emphatically plant myself on any particular faction or individual's side, I'm begging you, on behalf of all the other folks who aren't invested in these disputes, to please, figure this stuff out. Resolve your differences, or at least minimize their fallout on the rest of us. Any sane and objective evaluation, based on simple examination of the last twenty years, should make it clear that no absolute and lasting "victory" of any faction is possible - you all HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO CONTINUE DEALING WITH EACH OTHER. Regards, Thomas Leavitt

6 9

Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time
by james clark 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

No one contacted me to inform me about the voting. Being unhoused I don't always get to check my emails. Thankfully I did check before voting was over. I tend to avoid these threads unless it's urgent due to the arguing, power plays, and lack of transparency. I know this doesn't reflect the party as a whole, but makes trying to see the actual information difficult. Critiques ate often being met with hostility, ableist attacks, etc. This should be addressed in a constructive manner. We have a lot of work to do in order to build or voting block, and continuous infighting, is counterproductive. As is having the spokesperson publicly fighting with other greens, some for standing up for party values, some for valid reasons. These arguments should not be done in public forums, as it will only serve to push people out of the part, and discourage people from getting involved. Let us focus on the work that needs to get done in public, and handle internal disagreement in private. Maybe even finding people to act as mediation teams when that option is available. On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)hotmail.com> wrote: This is incorrect. 1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted. 2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions. 3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific candidates. 4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and adjusted count would not have changed the results. It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the **new** Vote Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA email list. Eric Brooks *From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces@sfgreens.org] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Castor *Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM *To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election, I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we approach the next vote. I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however, numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother: *Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions included on the inform list announcement for CC elections *The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official gpca-dot-org address *A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another, which is a conflict of interest *At least one active county was not informed of the SGA *Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual statistics would not be recorded accurately. This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things should be addressed. If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was never complete. Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter- not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future internal party elections should reflect this. -Nicole Castor GP Sacramento County PS I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have the possibility of an explanation. On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin(a)msn.com> wrote: So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be sent out? On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote: Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Eric, please open the ðŸ—³ vote box for me... Rj Schwichtenberg Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > > Eric, > Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? > > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. >> >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. >> >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> Iâ€™ll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DONâ€™T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >> >> Email me at: brookse32(a)hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: >> >> 415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844> >> >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >> gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman% 2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com% 7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE: Due to [...] Content analysis details: (6.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------- 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C Received from the same IP twice in a row (only one external relay; empty or IP helo) 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (efgreen.1[at]juno.com) 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral) 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org] 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY From and body contain different freemails 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor. -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman% 2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com% 7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes -- gpca-votes mailing list gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

1 0

[Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time
by Eric Brooks 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

Hi again all, The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting software closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast time. *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that even if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the candidates who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting will not affect the actual results. *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to have your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by midnight tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals. Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote system. This is our first time using this new voting software and there were bound to be some bugs. Eric Brooks From: Eric Brooks Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:46 PM To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes(a)sfgreens.org> Subject: Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote Tonight Hi all, I am available all night tonight for anyone who has problems voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. I'll be sending out a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should receive (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON'T SEE IT). *TO CONTACT ME* Email me at: brookse32(a)hotmail.com<mailto:brookse32@hotmail.com> and /or call me at: 415-756-8844 Eric Brooks

11 29

[Gpca-votes] Reminder: GPCA Email Rules of Decorum
by Eric Brooks 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

Hi all, Since we have recently been getting into an email conversation with some disagreement between commenters, I want to take a moment to remind all of the members of the GPCA-Votes list of the GPCA Email Rules of Decorum, which can be found at the following link: http://www.cagreens.org/it-protocol/email-decorum *Specifically, please take note of the following clauses and please all follow them, so that we can have a respectful dialog.* 3. No "personality-based" discussion. Speculation or accusations about another's motives, thought processes, or beliefs is off-charter. A focus on 'issues rather than personalities' should be the participants' guiding light. Personal attacks, verbal threats and/or harassment can be grounds for loss of subscription. 4. No misrepresentation of another's work. Participants shall not misrepresent the work of others and shall make a good faith effort to be factually correct. 6. No insulting, disparaging, degrading, or demeaning language or any other ad hominem attacks. It's never necessary to label others in order to discuss their ideas and activities. Chronic, hurtful sarcasm, or giving people vengeful nicknames, or any other disrespectful treatment of fellow activists, is grounds for loss of subscription... Thanks all, Eric Brooks SGA Vote Administrator

4 3