Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [Atlarge] Re: @LARGE ELECTION: you response is urgent

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

At 05:40 p.m. 4/05/2003, bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> |  Not allowing for seconding gives far too much power to the nominator.
>
> Who said nomination needn't be seconded?
Your Polling Officer (and primary Nominator of a rather ridiculous (or 
Machiavellian) list of candidates), Jefsey Morfin said this.

(message dated  May 2)
"2. the nominees do not need to be seconded (however all those we listed 
together are, what is good)"

I appreciate your original message and perhaps you can work this out with 
him, so that we end up with a proper slate of candidates.

> The message that went out
> requesting nominations clearly said otherwise, to wit:
>
> 3. Persons nominated by more than one person will be considered to be
> seconded. Those nominated only once will be identified on the At Large
> Discuss list, and readers of the Discuss list will be given the opportunity
> to second their nomination.
*All*  members should have that right. They do not have to accept 
un-seconded candidates. We need candidates that have a minimum of support.

That acceptances can be made  to a private address and then published (or 
not) is also wrong when acceptances can and should  be made publicly.

To answer Hugh's question: I hesitate because I am very reluctant to 
endorse such a procedure.



-joop-



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