Re: [wg-review] lost nominations

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 13:02 5/01/01 +0100, Jefsey wrote:
>One of the consensus building problem is the nomination system. When you 
>look for consensus you try to smooth the things, what you do not do when 
>you fight an election. Public nominations is a way of building camps, 
>create opposition, fear to be categorized. This creates problems instead of 
>helping them solved.
>

Agree completely.

>The secret nomination procedure though the booth was the occasion to see 
>emerging figures acknowledged by members for their capacity to lead to a 
>consensus. 
>
Agree also with this.

......
>
>I therefore:

>3. call for a nomination count as 7 people - including me - have nominated 
>through the booth, others by mail
>

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. 
7 voters lost their chance to nominate , due to my initial error with the
booth.This was corrected.

There are two ways to prevent their disenfranchisement. One is to let them
nominate publically, as several others did already.
The other option would be to post the list of Nominees from the Booth
tomorrow and ask the 7, if their vote would have have added any nominee.
(their password still gives them access to the results page). 

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html