RE: [atlarge-discuss] Panel, elections and over-delayingmaneuvers... with a "prequel"

[espresso@e-scape.net]

Dear Bruce (et al.),

At 16:37 -0800 2003/03/31, <bruce@barelyadequate.info> wrote:
>...
>I agree in principle.  Judyth and Jan were the unsolicited recipients
>of the
>list.  If any "hijacking" was perpetrated, the fault for that would
>fall on
>Vittorio, not them.  However, that said, their continued denial of the
>at
>list to myself, Jefsey, and now Eric -- who has apparently accepted
>his role
>a replacement panelist -- to allow us to conduct the election is
>another
>thing entirely, and must clearly laid at their feet.

Thank you for that partial recognition of the facts. I gather
from your other messages that you now understand what I've been
saying all along -- that is, I have no problem with passing the
information on to a Panel (even a limited one) but do expect
it to act as a Panel and not as separate individuals issuing
informal requests or even demands that I turn the information
over to individuals.

Anyway, whether you all understand me or not is pretty much
irrelevant at this point. There is a Panel motion on the table
in which three people are eligible to vote since they have
confirmed that they had not resigned.

>The fact is, several others besides myself and Jefsey have asked for
>the
>list to be released to the Panel.

And several others (at least 6 of them on the mini-ballot)
have said they preferred that the list be used only for
the purposes of the elections. To me, at least, they meant
"don't send the list to any of the people mentioned under
the various other options; hold onto the information and
pass it on to whoever will be conducting the elections."

>| As I've explained before, I have not so much as opened the lists
>| myself: I am just holding them so they can be used in the elections.
>| At this point, I would hesitate to play any part in organizing
>| or attempting to scrutineer in those elections. In fact, given
>| how Jefsey evidently feels about me, nothing useful is likely
>| to be achieved by my serving on any committee he is part of.
>
>I wouldn't go that far.  At this point Jefsey is speaking more out of
>frustration than anything.  He, like I, sees this organization
>floundering,
>and wants to see it succeed.

As do I, believe it or not. But I don't see any organization
where the individuals involved are not committed to working
together, or where having been elected to a position on
a Panel is taken to mean one has the power to act alone on
grounds of haste rather than convene the Panel and come up
with an agreed-upon plan.

What we have had instead is what I call "unilateralism" --
fairly interesting but rambling discussion of some of the
issues, followed by somebody's decision to act alone without
confirming that they are empowered to do so on behalf of the
group.

With at least half-a-dozen possible election systems
mentioned (to be run by several different individuals),
no decision as to which would be used by whom, and somewhat
different requests from 2 of 3 remaining Panel members (not
to mention various comments from members not on the Panel),
I could see no action for myself which would not be just
as arbitrary as Vittorio's decision to send the information
to Jan and myself rather than Bruce, Jefsey and Eric.

In short, I am as eager for new elections and a fresh start
as anyone here but very reluctant to taint the new Panel
by supporting the notion that individuals can run parallel
elections to suit themselves rather than follow some kind
of legitimate process. The list itself was not needed
immediately since no notices or ballots could be sent
anyhow until the Panel got its act together and chose a
process and timetable - something I certainly wasn't
stopping it from doing, either before or after Vittorio
sent me those files.

>| I also very much doubt it is wise for a group like ours to
>| let its Panel designate one person as Spokesman for all issues
>| and all circumstances, especially without a mandate from the
>| membership and in the absence of any agreement as to what this
>| group wants to say to whom. It is no discredit to Joop to
>| admit that at this point he speaks primarily for himself, as
>| do all of us.
>
>I agree.  But we have much to do -- election, incorporation, bylaws,
>etc. >-- before we address this issue.

Agreed, but I wasn't the one who raised it. It was Jefsey who
suggested Joop be appointed all-purpose Spokesman for the group
by the new Panel. Personally, I would suggest that if an
all-purpose Spokesperson is wanted, that position should also
be an elective one ... but I'd much prefer we deal with essentials
like what the organization is and what positions its members
want to take before we elect *or* appoint anyone to speak for them.

Regards,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de