RE: [atlarge-discuss] Questions for all candidates

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

I have not known of any elections, except rigged ones, where nominees
upfront reacehd consensus about the very tasks ahead of them.
In these (as usual leading) qeustions you do not ask nominees/candidates
their opinion but to agree to rules you make up before you stand for
election, making it a ground for acceptance.

With the same rights all candidates can "ask" you to abandon your
incannatlarge.com before you stand, utter nonsense.

One is a candidate on ones own firm believes, and thus representing the
people that think alike or have sympathy for those ideas, thus
representing them in the panel.
Once all those views are represented in a panel, the panel tries to work
at its best ability to create results stemming from the mandate given.
If the panel feels that the mandate is insufficient, the panel turns to
the members on the topic in question and asks for input.

The panel should at all times get on any internal vote, 11 votes,
whether they are abstension, sick-notes or whatever, all votes should be
accounted for and a minimum of 6 votes is needed for a majority in the
panel.

What to do in case panel members resign, or are in other ways unable to
vote is a matter that should be handled in the first discussion among
the panel members in whatever way that takes place.
It should certainly not be part of a resignation before even starting,
that way the voting and panel could be rigged to sabotage in no time and
bring us in the almost same position as we are in now.

The term of this panel is initially 12 months, as announced and agreed
by a majority, if silent.
To even think that the election in this stage can be changed to a very
very interim panel with an even shorter time then the first panel for
setting up elections and writing the rules to that, with input from the
complete membership is a farce.
There are more things to do, like proposing incorporation, which in my
opinion is an integral part of setting up elections rules since these
rules should be part of the foundation of the incorporation.
If the panel then agrees that her mandate is fulfilled, the panel can
choose to ask the membership for a further mandate (with proposals
included) or call for new elections. Setting a (probably to short) time
frame on the tasks ahead upfront would most likeley make for either
sloppy work or no time for finding a consensus among the membership.

On the ballot for this panel several questions will be asked and those
questions will be a lead for the panel and all panel members undoubtedly
will defend the people that voted for them in getting the the most
consensus carrying results, any prior polling was interesting but bares
no hold to the panel members elected, only that wat will be asked of
them by the people voting for them and that what is part of the ballot,
of which we do not know the outcome.
It may well be that several candidates can not live with the outcome of
those questions on the ballot, a problem not even touched, but real
nonetheless.

Joop, making demands on other candidates a base for your decision to run
is the least viable of all reasons to run at all.
If you demand that your agenda is followed by the new panel we might as
well skip the election and let you run this organization from now on,
which was not something that was voted on, but then again, accepting
your "terms" would be that vote. The entire voting process would be moot
in that case, flaws and all.

Regards

Abel



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz] 
> Sent: 12 May 2003 23:23
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Cc: gilbert.lumantao@mailcity.com; alnajjar@any-dns.com; 
> ivonnemunoz@arachnis.net
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Questions for all candidates
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> There are only 2 days left until "acceptance day".
> 
> It is essential that some kind of consensus will exist among 
> the members of 
> what is going to be "the Panel" about number of panelists, 
> quorum , mandate 
> and agenda.
> 
> If such internal agreement does not exist, there is no hope 
> for a properly 
> functioning Panel and I certainly do not want to be part of it.
> 
> Will you agree:
> 
> 0. that nominees who have not been seconded cannot stand for election.
> 
> 1. to maintain  the quorum for any decisions at 7 (as long as 
> there are 11 
> elected)
> 2. to resign when there is no reasonable expectation that a 
> quorum can  be 
> reached
> 3. to limit the term of this initial 11 member panel to 3 
> months 4. to limit the mandate to the writing of election 
> rules and subsequent 
> holding of elections for a Polling- or Electoral commission 
> first? 5. to follow the wishes of the members, as expressed 
> in various polls, with 
> regards to structuring the icannatlarge.
> 
> Your answers (here on this list or in the Forum 
> http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=22 )  will 
> help my own 
> decision with regards to standing in this flawed election.
> 
> 
> -joop-
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 



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