Re: [wg-c] Vote for Working Group Co-chair

[Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>]

Bill,

Independently of the fact that she might agree or not to your manipulations
(I make no assumptions whatsoever), you are using Eva's name for your own
purposes without her knowledge while she is on vacation. This is highly
unethical.

You cannot force anybody to run in a election.

Elections are most usually not delayed because somebody thinks that
somebody else, who has never expressed an interest on being chair or
written to this list, might want to run.

Your nomination did not come on time either, that is also false.

Business interests do have a limit, it is called ethical behaviour.

Javier

>I vote for neither of Javier's two posted candidates. I believe Eva
>Frölich, who was nominated within the scheduled time period, is a valid
>candidate for co-chair of Work Group C and we should be allowed to vote for
>her. 



>My vote is cast for the "write-in" candidate, Eva Frölich
>
>In the spirit of established online voting procedures, I urge everyone who
>has already cast their vote to please reconsider, and cast a new vote for
>the write-in candidate Eva Frölich. And I urge those who have chosen not to
>vote or participate in the balloting to please cast a write-in ballot for
>Eva Frölich.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Bill Semich
>pNC Member
>
>
><History of Eva's Nomination:>
>
>>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:46:32 -0400
>>To: wg-c@dnso.org
>>From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <bill@mail.nic.nu>
>>Subject: NOMINATION for WG-C Co-Chair
>>
>>I nominate Eva Frolich <eva@nic-se.se> as co-chair for Work Group C. She
>has already made some excellent voluntary contributions to the Names
>Council in its efforts to develop a self-management process for the Working
>Groups, and I believe she would work to help maintain/develop the consensus
>process for WG-C in an open, organized, balanced and goal-oriented manner.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Bill Semich
>>APTLD/pNC Member
>
>
>At 08:31 AM 7/24/99 +0200, Javier wrote:
>>
>>I seems that we have two candidates to the position of co-chair who have
>>accepted their nomination: Kent and Jonathan.
>>
>>It does not seem acceptable to me to include in a ballot somebody who has
>>not accepted (given his/her permission) to be there by accepting the
>>nomination. If any other of the nominees wish to be put in the ballot, they
>>can say so today, otherwise I will post a ballot tomorrow with these two
>>names only, and then leave three days for the members of the WG to vote.
>
>I responded:
>
>>Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 07:50:17 -0400
>>To: wg-c@dnso.org
>>From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <bill@mail.nic.nu>
>>Subject: Re: [wg-c] Election of co-chair
>>Cc: eva@nic-se.se
>>Bcc: fay@ripe.net
>>In-Reply-To: <199907240631.IAA14487@dnso.dnso.org>
>>
>>Eva Frölich <eva@nic-se.se>, whom I nominated as co-chair for WG-C, is on
>vacation and does not have access to email until July 26 or 27. Please wait
>at least until then to give her the opportunity to respond.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Bill Semich
>
>At 09:27 AM 7/24/99 -0700, KENT CRISPIN wrote:
>
>>1) I have absolutely no personal stake in whether or not Eva is included in 
>>the election, and I have no objection to waiting until, say, July 
>>29-31 to conduct the balloting.  However, that is Javier's call.
>>
>>2) That being said, an individual going on vacation is, in itself,
>>obviously *not* a valid reason to delay an election, or indeed any
>>operation of the WG.  During any given time period the odds are fair 
>>that some "key" person or another will not be available.  That's the 
>>very nature of this forum.  
>>
>>What you are obligated to do is establish reasonable time periods 
>>for the operation of the decision mechanism -- long enough to get 
>>good participation, short enough to permit progress to be made.  The 
>>announced nomination period was one week, which does seem adequate.
>>
>>Bill made a nomination late in the nomination period, for someone he
>>apparently knew would be on vacation, without their knowledge.  Their
>>lack of ability to reply to the nomination doesn't seem like a valid
>>reason to delay, in itself. 
>