[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] The North American DNSO BoD chair
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 10:48:18PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > According to the *actual* rules of the game, 10
> > supporting
> > messages were all that were required, and after that there is no
> > need
> > to send in any more. So therefore, if your favorite candidate
> > has
> > already got more than 10, no need for you to act...
> There is no such rule.
???Of course there is -- you repeat it below.
> >> For The NC to ignore this would be a travesty.
> > No, it is *absolutely necessary* for them to ignore it. If they
> > did
> > not, it would penalize those who took the rules at face value.
> > (And
> > I *know* what a stickler you are for following the rules.)
> If they ignore the strong statement of support that the sheer
> number of seconds means, then they ignore it at the peril of
> disenfranchising the GA members.
In Karl Auerbach's particular case, the "sheer number of seconds" is
primarily a reflection of the fact that Karl is the only candidate
who broadcast an email message to the IDNO, giving explicit
instructions on how to join the GA list. Karl thoughtfully also
included an exact copy of the "support" template for the dnso web
site, and of course, instructions for how to send it in. That is,
*after the call for nominations*, Karl tried to pack the GA list
with his supporters.
Please note that potentially similar actions on the part of Rick
White's supporters have been heavily criticized, with at least one
person stating that the election should be invalidated if Mr White
was elected. By that same reasoning, of course, the election would
have to be invalidated if Karl were elected.
> The "rules" only said that a member had to have at least 10
> statements of support.
Yes indeed. That is *precisely* what I said above. No more, no less.
> There was no maximum, and nothing that
> indicated that they desired no further supportive statements when
> it reached 10.
Yes -- completely consistent with what I said
> To imply otherwise is quite frankly nothing more than an attempt to
> minimize the impact of such a broad statement by the GA in support
> of a candidate. What motive could you have for that, Kent?
> Hmm..one wouldn't have to go far to locate it.
Yes. I am motivated by the attempt by Karl to pack the nominations
by getting a large number of people to join the GA solely to support
him. This is a low-grade form of vote packing that, remarkably, the
ever-vigilant Mr Langston seems to have missed.
> The NC can only ignore the GA so far.
It didn't ignore the GA. It honestly solicited nominations of
candidates for it to vote on, and it got those candidates. That is
what the rule says.
> Funny how you flip flop on this, arguing that the GA is strong, and
> has a voice, then when it doesn't suit your own purpose, arguing
> that it is weak, and that its voice has no real impact.
Hmm. Interesting point. Of course, the various statements were
made in different contexts, concerning different kinds of power and
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain