Re: [ga] nomination procedures

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> >   The GA will select five nominated names and forward those 5 names
> >   to the NC.  The list of five names will include the following:
> > 
> 
> Do I understand correctly that you propose that the GA members nominate
> candidates, and then select (with a vote, I assume) 5 candidates to forward
> to the NC from the set of nominees that have at least 10 statements of
> support?

Should have said "at least 5 names".  We have no procedure for a vote.

> >   1) Levels of support will be shown by a list of 10 names of GA
> >   members in support of the nominee.  We use the same definition of
> >   "GA member" that was used for the BoD nomination:  Any member of 
> >   the ga, ga-announce, WG lists, and Constituency lists.
> > 
> 
> I strongly disagree on that.
> This is the election of the GA chair, I don't see why we should include the
> constituencies and/or the working groups.
> Moreover, we have already seen the mess generated by the fact that multiple
> lists are used as a basis for the electorate. Why should we repeat the same
> mistake?

There were some press reports that made much of the imprecise
criteria, and the usual suspects cried foul because of the Don Telage
and Rick White nominations.  That was silly, however, because email
has no authentication to begin with.  There are clearly non-people on
the various lists -- for example, the cyberlaw account that Berkman
uses to collect archives.  Should that address nominate and support
candidates?

On the other side, what practical benefit do we gain by being
restrictive? I don't see any.  From my perspective it just seems like
further sustenance for the "we vs them" engram...

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain