Re: [atlarge-discuss] Tainted election? Prove it!!!

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

At 06:12 p.m. 9/05/2003, bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
> James Khan wrote:
>
> |  It has become self-apparent that this Election has been tampered with.
> |  I can-not, will-not, and steadfast refuse to participate any
> |  further in this Election.
>
> Your call, James.  But as I see it, the only "taint" on this election is the
> bickering, back-biting, second and third-guessing, and members who can't
> follow simple f@#$ing instructions!  I think it is significant that the
> primary person making this claim is NOT A MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATIION!!!
Bruce,

Danny's criticism is spot on.
The fact that he is not a member does not weaken his arguments.

> If you have any *provable* allegations about how this election is being
> conducted, then bring 'em on!  But don't you *dare* impugn the honor of
> myself and the few brave others who are trying to get something done for
> this orgaization!
Bruce, I feel for you, because the same things have been said about the 
time *I* sacrificed to get this icannatlarge off the ground. (and before 
that, the IDNO)

Grit you teeth: we don't know you and giving  blind trust (as I did with 
Bret Fausett and Curtis Kularski, for example) is just not advisable in 
cyberspace.
Trying to be a "leader" in any sense here is a martyr's role.

>  Something, I might add, that everyone was crying for!
>
> The nature of this group being what it is, I expected, going into this
> election, to get a certian number of complaints!  But we got very few
> complaints about the process we intended to implement, and even a few kudos
> on our proposed process, whichj was posted numerous times on this forum as
> it was being developed, and was modified numerous times based on member
> inputs.  Why, then, are people complaining about the process now that we're
> doing *exactly* what we said we would?
It is not the number of complaints about your proposed procedure that is 
relevant, it is the substance of those complaints.
You do not seem to listen to sound advice.
(Mandates and *accepted* election rules first, then elections)

> The message we sent out was specific about how to make and second
> nominations, accept or decline nominations, and how accepting nominees could
> send in candidate statements. We are not responsible for:
>
>         -  Members who use alternative venues to submit nominations 
> instead of
> simply clicking their "reply" button!
>
>         -  Members who nominated non-members
>
>         -  Non-members who nominated members
>
>         -  Nominees who have failed to send in candidate statements (I 
> have yet to
> receive a single one yet to my personal e-mail address as the message
> instructed! )
Welcome to the world of herding cats. People here do not "obey instructions".
They must be accommodated.
They have rights when it comes to elections:

1. the right to nominate and second
1a. the right to reject unseconded candidates.
2. the right to know those who accept their candidacy.
3. the right to question the candidates
4. the right to elect them to an office of their choice.
5. the right to set the mandate for that office and the term of office of 
the elected officers.


All these rights need time to be exercised properly.
The elementary principles of "how to" elect people are not exactly new.

Even if we do not have Charter rules yet to govern our elections, this does 
not mean that you get an untainted election when you ignore  the elementary 
principles.


BTW, you have not yet answered why I am not listed as Nominee on your 
"official"  website.  Who *are* your watchdogs to send complaints to?


My Nomination and seconding is a matter of public record.



-joop-



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