Re: [atlarge-discuss] response to the question of a nominee

[Jan Siren <sirenj@earthlink.net>]

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>
> As soon as we voted the rule, Joop made a case about the Forum being
> acknowledged. Our interest is not in ruling but in serving this community.
> A Polling Committee Member then accepted (and we tacitly agreed) that
> nominations could reach the Polling Committee any way. This is realistic
> since may be 10 to 30 people are active on the Forum and 20 on the mailing
> list for a quickly reactive Membership of probably 300.
>
> This rule implied:
> - there is no limitation on the number of Members one can nominate
> - there is no obligation to disclose who one endorses, no who is nominating.
>
> This lead to two interesting cases:
> - nominations of people by opponents. Because no one would know it and
> because we need new blood. I did not established the rule but I saw it was
> a good rule and I wish we keep it. Like Primaries.
>

At this point, I must respectfully disagree.  Every organization I have 
ever belonged to that professed even a semblance of democratic process, 
required *public* nominations and seconds.  The only secret part of the 
process was the balloting itself, allowing the voters to express their 
true preferences without fear of personal recrimination.  I don't believe 
democracy is served by departing from this model.


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