Re: [atlarge-discuss] Off to a bad start

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@vitaminic.net>]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 17:13:17 -0400, you wrote:

>Sending a post to some 10% of the electorate subscribed to this list or the
>membership of a completely different organization (DNSO)does not satisfy the
>requirement that you inform the electorate that an election has commenced.
>
>EVERYBODY who signed up to the AtLarge.com website HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW this
>election has commenced, not just your cronies.

Pardon me - it wasn't me that insisted to set up an election in a rush
like this. I could not formally announce anything to the membership
because the panel hadn't officially approved the charter, and the
panel did it no earlier than Friday (after I sent solicitations to
vote to the panel list and privately to the panel members more than
once). And, just to be precise, you started to work with the other
watchdogs on an "announce document", because you thought the Charter
was unclear and biased, so I imagine that if I had immediately sent
the Charter to the whole membership you'd have started complaining
about me trampling on the electoral committee and so on. But I didn't
get any final announce document to be sent to the membership yet, so I
don't know what I could have announced. 

However, your point makes sense, and I think the same; so I think we
should move the Monday deadline forward of at least one week, possibly
more (because the panel will have to approve the new schedule, and we
have to know whether Elisabeth would be able to cope with the new
dates, and this will take time, so if we move it by one week we risk
getting the new deadline approved two days before it, and not solving
anything). 

Personally, and I've been saying this since a long time ago, if we
want to do a *serious* election, we should have decided to have it in
September. Having an election on the last week of July (or the first
of August) is simply ridiculous: half of the people I know are on
holiday and offline in that period. However I know that if I propose
this you'll call for treason and panel-squatting and so on...

>I do not have time to argue endlessly with you. You are being obstructive.

It looks to me that you (without having been elected by anyone) are
trying to run this organization instead of the elected panel. You even
wrote that a part of the Charter the panel approved was
"inappropriate" so you would have amended it on your own... I
understand that this is the way you conceive democracy: scream loud,
consider yourself the supreme and unquestionable representative of the
Good, and call for treason or corruption whenever someone thinks it
differently from you. 

And for obstruction... you call me obstructive when I try to get the
time necessary to do things well, and then you complain and call me
obstructive because things haven't been done well. IMHO, it is more
obstructive to offer oneself as watchdog and lead organizer of this
election, and then, two days before the intended deadline for
nominations, to resign as watchdog and show up as candidate, as you
just did.

(And I don't even want to comment you naming subscribers to this list
as "cronies" of mine.)
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
----------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <--------------------------

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