I have several concerns with a proposal that keeps the voting process "as is".
My primary concern with the current method of physically voting [midwinter, annual conference] is the fact that many of our members are disenfranchised simply by the fact that they are not able to attend. If we are committed to our organizations movement towards a more virtual presence and participation then we need to provide better options.
ALAConnect is a proven option in many of ALA's organizations.
Although I wholly approve of the importance of "hearing the discussion", this is also problematic since we simply have not addressed better mechanism for our virtual members to pursue said discussion. If by "hearing the discussion" we mean simply those that happen in Steering or at midwinter and annual then we are back to my "primary concern". Our general membership meeting change many years ago to an update rather place where people "discuss this issues". IMHO, this may be a blessing in disguise since again only those who attend are heard.
Timing is another critical issue. Often times it takes Steering long into the Fall to begin engaging the issues. By the time Midwinter rolls around many of those artificial deadlines that worked great in the non-virtual world are past. This means that only two "the ballot" .... and annual are your only real choices.
Another chief concern is that our organization is simply at a critical stage of its life cycle that requires a more robust method for being responsive to the needs of our members. Creating artificial “times that we can vote” has created a stagnate organization. That said, it certainly is important to discuss, but I believe that we can be better about “calling the vote” and empowering our leaders to move us forward.
In sum, I’m in favor of a virtual method for voting, virtual method for discussion, and a little more flexibility on when our leaders can “call the vote”.