[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: New motion (was Re: [ga] nomination procedures)
Mark & all
My vote is for a single candidate, no a particular single candidate. I also
think we need an election after the method is decided, not relying on BoD
election results. Could others who think this way please indicate - I would
not like the 'true' single candidate proposal to get lost...
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Library
BP D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex
New Caledonia, South Pacific
Tel: 00 687 262000 Fax: 00 687 263818
email: email@example.com / web: http://www.spc.org.nc
From: Mark C. Langston [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 16 November 1999 19:51
Cc: email@example.com; MarkP@spc.org.nc; firstname.lastname@example.org;
Subject: Re: New motion (was Re: [ga] nomination procedures)
On 16 November 1999, R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
>There must be a misunderstanding here.
>> <snip> .... I show the current support of the Single
>> Candidate Proposal so
>> far to be Seven (7) individuals.
>> 1.) Andy Gardner
>> 2.) Christopher Ambler
>> 3.) Myself (Bradley D. Thornton)
>> 4.) Roeland Myers
>> 5.) Mark Langston
>> 6.) R. Gaetano
>> 7.) Mark Perkins
>Please delete me from your list.
>I never said I supported the single candidate, I even proposed to have a
>weighted vote that would have given, as outcome, three candidates.
>I strongly believe, and I think I said that clearly (but I apologize if it
>was not clear enough) that the proposal of a single candidate or whatever
>other proposal that will put the GA in direct confrontation with the NC is
>going to be the end of the GA.
>In order for us to have the chance to count something in the process we
>to have the courage and the patience of making one step at the time, and
>to be playing the "all or nothing" game (unless what we really want is
>"nothing", which can make us revert to our favourite sport, *complaining*).
Yow. Remove me as well. While I support the "single candidate" method,
I never said I supported a given single candidate, or that said candidate
should be determined from the BoD election results.
And yes, the "single candidate" approach is forcing the issue. I, for one,
would rather have "nothing" than to proceed with a sham of a GA that exists
only to give the appearance of weight and support to actions wholly
decided upon by the NC. Either the GA will be a legimate body, or it
will, and should, disappear. If the NC want to disband the GA over this,
that's telling, and a better outcome that proceeding forward with the
GA being used as the sock puppet covering the NC's hand.
Mark C. Langston
San Jose, CA