[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] The North American DNSO BoD chair
On 13 October 1999, Kent Crispin <email@example.com> wrote:
>It is in fact *you* who complained that people joining the GA list
>to support a candidate was a problem. I took that fact, and noticed
>that Karl had engaged in precisely the same thing. Yet you advocate
>that Karl has a some kind of election mandate from the nomination
>process, despite being tainted by the processes you claim to
>despise. Furthermore, you have made great hay about strict
>adherence to procedure.
>My personal views have not even been discussed -- the whole thread
>has been concerning the internal contradictions in your views.
Then you either ignored or misread my statement that any and all such
votes for Karl, or any other candidate, should be disqualified as well.
I also pointed out that in absence of a list of eligible voters,
produced WHEN THE VOTE WAS CALLED, there's no way to do any such thing.
However, I'd wager that even if this were done, Karl would still have
a mandate from the remaining eligible voters.
I'm pointing up problems with process, and you want to claim
contradiction where none exists.
>Just for the record, here are my views on the subject: It is clear
>that any member of a constituency should be able to nominate or
>support candidates for the board, regardless of membership in a
>mailing list. Membership in a mailing list was a convenient rule of
>thumb, but it shouldn't be slavishly followed, because after all,
>this is ONLY A NOMINATION.
It's not a convenient rule of thumb. It was a unanimously adopted
definition put forth by Amadeu in San Jose. It was then arbitrarily
and summarily modified for the purposes of this election.
Mark C. Langston
San Jose, CA