Re: [ga] nomination procedures

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 16 November 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:


>On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 11:36:41PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>> 
>> It would be desirable, I think, for the GA chair to have strong support in
>> the GA.  A problem with the "send over everybody with 10 endorsers"
>> approach, it seems to me, is that it doesn't meet that criterion:  It's
>> relatively easy for a person to get the minimum number of endorsers without
>> regard to the breadth or depth of his support in the GA as a whole.  The
>> advantage of the "send over the X names with the most support" approach is
>> that everyone on the list will have a somewhat stronger level of support
>> within the GA.
>
>That doesn't necessarily follow.  It only follows when you have an
>authentic electorate, which we don't have. 

[...snip...]

>
>In the extreme, the method you propose would allow Jeff Williams, who
>has quietly signed up 50 fake names to the GA list, to carry the day
>and get his 5 favorite candidates selected.  (I myself have signed up
>a few fake names just in case the votes are needed.)


In light of this statement made by Mr. Crispin, I must agree with him,
that we do not have a valid electorate, and any nomination or other
selection process is suspect at best, invalid at worst;  This includes
the prior BoD nomination proceedings.

There has long been suspicion here and in other lists that one or more
active addresses are in reality one person.  Here we have an admission
of this deliberate act, for the purposes of voting.  

We cannot proceed in good conscience.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA