On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 01:48:04PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.
> Comments below. Bottom line: I cannot accept your proposal for Adcom
> replacement unless it is modified in some way to meet the objections set out
> below. We all agree, I'm sure, that the charter committee should go back to
> the constituency unified. We don't want to have to debate these issues on
> the list. So let's try to find some mutually acceptable compromise.
If necessary, we can debate this stuff on the list. I don't want to be
held hostage to unanimity.
> The "Adcom" replacement method means is that voters have no idea who will
> replace the person they vote for.
"No idea???" There are only two possibilities...
> > Second, having some ballot with two names and others with one name is not
> > fair, even if the second name is not mandatory. I understand that your
> I see no "unfairness." Everyone has the same chance to put forward a
> replacement candidate. If they choose not to, it is their choice, and voters
> can take this into consideration. How is this unfair?
Because some candidates may genuinely not have a reasonable choice for
> > Last, your proposal will induce an over representation of the 2-names
> > region (not in the NC meeting, since we are talking of replacement
> > proposal) in the running of the constituency.
> No. This is just mistaken on your part. The replacement candidate is not a
> formal member of Adcom.
No, it is not a mistake at all. The alternates would be in a
privileged position relative to other volunteers, precisely because
they were next in line as NC rep.
> Just to show you how meaningless this objection is, both Kent and I are from
> the same region. We are both active in Adcom meetings.
Neither of us has the status of being next in line as a NC rep.
> Let me outline some of the problems with this method. I don't think they
> have been discussed enough.
> First, when you have a replacement election, it means that people from other
> regions already represented on the NC play an unusually large, and unfair
> role in selecting the candidate from the unrepresented region.
NC representatives are explicitly not supposed to be representing
regions; they are explicitly supposed to be representing the whole
constituency, and the whole constituency should always vote on them. If
anything, this is an opportunity for *more* fairness, since it means
that the candidates must appeal to the whole constituency, rather than
depending on a narrow regional base.
> Second, one consequence of the above is that people who should resign may
> not resign, in order to avoid the loss of power or position. Kathy was
> willing to resign because she knew she was not capable of meeting the
> obligations and thought I would replace her.
Sorry, but I don't believe that either you or Kathy are that naive.
Andrew's statement was decisive and clear; the charter was rejected;
your name was not on the ballot.
> It would have been pretty easy
> just to hang on to the position.
Then she should have done so. The consequences are not anywhere near
as dire as you make them out to be. I noticed that Kathy did put out
a position paper after she resigned.
> I am not saying that she would do that, but
> lots of people might do it. And that is definitely bad for the NCC. People
> who are unable to perform should resign immediately, and the replacement
> system makes it more likely that they will do so.
I consider this effect almost totally inconsequential. If we had an
approved charter an election could be complete in 45 days.
> Third: YJ got over 40 votes in the last election. You, Dany, as next in line
> in Adcom, got 18 votes from completely different people. If YJ resigned,
> someone who got less than half as many votes from completely different
> people takes her seat on the NC.
...for a short interim period until an election can be held. At which
time, the 40 voters in question will be in a position to reassert their
> This just doesn't seem right to me.
As Dany pointed out, it is quite common for NC members from other
constituencies to miss conference calls; reading the archives of the NC
list it is quite clear that things do not happen at a frantic pace. You
seem intent on converting the office of NC rep into a very big
confrontational political deal, when instead it should emphasize
collaboration and consensus. If the adcom is doing its job it should be
finding the consensus of the constituency as a whole, just as the NC
should be finding the consensus of the DNSO as a whole. It really
shouldn't make that much difference who attends the NC
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 18 2000 - 15:53:08 PDT