Re: [wg-c] co-chair

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

One other correction.
I formally withdrew from the nomination several days ago. I am not a candidate and
never took Javier's "nomination" seriously enough to decline it.

I formally asked Kent Crispin to also withdraw.
He never replied that he would not comply with this request.

I note that we have not yet been told by Javier what the co-chair does and what
authority it has.

--Milton Mueller

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>         FWIW --
>
>         Javier sent out s message on the morning of Tues, 13 Jul, saying:
> >I propose a one-week nomination period and then a three day election if
> >more than one person is nominated.
>
>         The same day, Siegfried nominated Kent, and Mark nominated himself.  On
> Thursday, Ivan nominated me.  On Saturday, Javier nominated Ivan, Chris and
> Milton (notwithstanding that Ivan had already stated that he would not
> stand).  Chris and Mark immediately withdrew.  On the morning of Tues, 20
> Jul, Kent accepted the nomination.  Seeing Kent's note, I did the same.
> Later on the morning of Tues, Jul 20, Bill nominated Eva.
>
>         Javier's note rests on two assumptions:  The first is that a nomination is
> not effective until it is formally accepted (for my part, I figure that a
> nomination is effective unless and until it is declined -- and that
> approach, if one cares, is more nearly consistent with Robert's Rules of
> Order).  The second is that we must count the "one week" to the minute,
> rather than to the day.  Here, too, his approach seems to me like the one
> less likely to achieve just results.
>
>         By my count, Kent, Milton, Eva and I were nominated by the end of Tues Jul
> 20, and (unless I've missed something) none of us has formally declined.  I
> figure that if we want this election actually to represent the will of the
> WG, then we should treat all of us as candidates.
>
>         I do have one, strongly urged, procedural suggestion:  that there should
> be a run-off if no candidate gets a majority in the initial vote.   That
> way, a much better chance that the person ultimately selected will be the
> one with the strongest support from the WG.
>
> Jon
>
> Jon Weinberg
> weinberg@msen.com
>
> At 08:28 PM 7/23/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >
> >WG C,
> >
> >I am afraid I sent this e-mail a couple of days ago to the wrong e-mail
> >address and never made it to the list.
> >
> >Sorry,
> >
> >Javier
> >
> >---------
> >
> >The situation with the co-chairs election is:
> >
> >- Kent was nominated and accepted the nomination within the established
> >period.
> >
> >- John was nominated and accepted his nomination after the one week period
> >had closed.
> >
> >- Mark self-nominated and then withdrew.
> >
> >- Ivan did not accept the nomination
> >
> >- I believe that Chris Ambler did not accept either.
> >
> >-------------------
> >
> >If we follow procedure.... then Kent, the only person to accept his
> >nomination within the nomination period, is automatically the co-chair. He
> >has, as a matter of fact, the right to ask that this be enforced. It is up
> >to you, Kent.
> >
> >In the other hand, I would personally prefer that we clarify, until the end
> >of this week, who wishes to run for co-chair, and vote during the first
> >three days of next week.
> >
> >Javier
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >