[ga-watchdog] Re: [ga] Two things troubling me with the GA Chair elections...

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 09:38 06.12.99 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:

>Two things started bothering me this morning regarding the current
>GA Chair elections:
>
>1)  The NC and officers of the DNSO are being allowed to vote -- something
>    that Caroline Chicoine changed the voting procedures to allow at the
>    very last minute.
>    (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00173.html).

Allowed to nominate; this is not a vote.
Aren't the NC members also constituency members?
Anyway, they didn't.

>   Elizabeth Porteneuve, the person responsible for the voting rules and
>    the Secretariat for the DNSO, has officially voiced support for a
>    candidate, as has Ken Stubbs, one of the Registrars NC members.
>
>    While I do believe the NC members have a right to participate in the
>    GA, I find it improper that they be allowed to influence a decision
>    on which they have final say.

I don't see how their stating their opinion in public affects our decision, 
since we don't make a decision. It might influence our opinion polls, but 
those are not votes.

>2) Discussions among the NC made it clear that they would not be willing
>    to accept a result in which only one or two candidates were put forth
>    for their selection.  Yet clearly, this is what's about to happen.
>    I find it interesting that the NC, who feared we might give them
>    no choice in the matter, is now content to sit back and let the
>    process continue as long as their "choice" is a candidate for which
>   their own members have voiced support.

At one point (my interpretation), it looked as if there could be either no 
candidate or a candidate that would have no real support either in the GA 
or the NC.
This outcome would clearly have been unacceptable to us all.
I'm happy that the current situation allows the NC to follow the procedure 
that was published without causing a panic in tne NC or the GA.

I'd certainly be less than happy if the NC stated a procedure and then 
changed it because they did not like its result.

>Am I alleging misconduct?  No;  at least, not as such.  But I must
>say that I find this improper.

I don't see a cause for alarm.
That doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I haven't seen any yet.

               Harald A


--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no