This makes sense to me; you can't compare the unpaid offices on offer here with the paid and prestigious roles that are hotly contested in board elections, government elections and most other democratic institutions.
This line of reasoning was supported by others who, on the whole, felt Linux Australia did a good job and was well run and this in itself meant there was little impetus to cast a vote for specific individuals.
One person expressed they had become a member to show support for the general aims of the organisation but were happy with how things were run and weren't really that concerned as to who actually made up the executive and committee itself.
Another commenter said, “Rest assured if I wasn't happy with the board I'd be campaigning a lot harder and you'd probably see a greater turnout.” He added, “When things are good ... this is what you see.”
One fortunate fellow did not vote because he was on a long overdue holiday and totally kept himself away from computers and other gadgetry! Part of me feels a sense of loss plus an overwhelming anxiety at any imagination of being offline for so long, but another part of me feels true envy at the thought of being free from the constant ding of a BlackBerry and the incessant ring of a mobile, ever signalling the pleas of those needing help.
Unfortunately, some causes for lack of voting were due to mistakes and misunderstandings. In a few cases people had signed up for mailing lists and believed they had joined Linux Australia when they had not. Some believed the voting occurred on-site at Linux.Conf.Au itself, and had not realised there was a two-week period where votes could be cast online. Others were unable to find the appropriate link from the Linux Australia home page.
A positive result from my story, then, is that these items can be taken into account when publicising next year's election and hopefully enhance the process.
Then came Melissa Draper ...
Draper wrote to me (and permitted me to quote her) to say my story was verging on trolling. She made reference to the “tone” I had put out, and “the effect” I had made.
I probed her for clarification; certainly, I didn't believe I'd been horrible in any way, that I had “trolled” a mailing list seeking bites, or even that benign words on a web page had “tone.”
What do you think?