Re[2]: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear WXW,

On 04:54 18/03/01, William X. Walsh said:
>Hello Jefsey,
>Saturday, March 17, 2001, 5:42:11 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > Dear WXW,
> > I though an average brain would understand that I nominate both of them
>Watch it Jefsey. I'd hate to see you suspended at this vital stage....

No offense intended, nothing personal here. I just meant that not over legally
meant people would understand my intent.

> > with the intent that people vote for Danny first and for Patrick afterward.
>And if more people think Patrick best suited for Chair, he will get
>elected.  The point is we have to follow our process.

This is their position. Mine is to support both of them together.
I suppose I have the right to tell it.

>As it is, Patrick is not a candidate for Co-Chair, since you did not
>nominate him properly as a candidate for Chair, which is where the
>co-chair pool of candidates will be chosen.

Two possibilities:
- either Secretariat accepts this and he his
- or Secretariat does not accept it and I will mail another nomination

My point is I want the maximum number of people to be aware that I
support the Ticket proposed by Joop first but I intended to propose.
I do thank you through this thread which helps my campaigning.

I have not met Danny but I was impressed by his working and
synthetisis capacity at the WG-Review. Joop described additional
qualities from his f2f meeting.

I have often enough disputed with Patrick to be convinced that we
disagree on most of the ways to approach the issues while we
basically agree on them (what is tiresome but permits to work more
deeply on good consensa). I also know his entusiasm, his working
capacity and his published desire and excitment to work with
Danny.

Also this means two people from two different areas. One of the
reasons GA has not been that much involved is that Chair and
co-Chair were European. I object to the existing rule which does
not preclude the two Chairs to be from the same geographical
area.

>Trying to change the process by "default" is simply not acceptable.

Acceptable to who. For what. There are rules, there is a Secretariat
to enforce them. If they say I am wrong, I will abide by their decision
and publish revised nominations I will comment. If I am right in an
other arena you were among those calling for nominations and
acceptances to be documented, what I considered as elementary
courtesy from nominees and quite usefull from members.

We are currently in a straw poll process where the Chair asked for
the positions to be documented. I abide by the same spirit and I
document nominations. I strongly recommand others to do the same.
I think net-democracy can only win from this. Don't you agree?

>We have a process, we need to stick to it, or risk losing the ability
>to have this kind of input into who the GA chair will be.

I see your point. IMHO - I may be wrong - any feeling of organization
and determination we may give to the NC is good for us and good for
them. NC knows we are not happy with them but want to cooperate.
They have the critics. I suppose they would be happy having the
help and the more we are oganized the better our help should be.

Jefsey

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html