<html><head></head><body data-blackberry-caret-color="#00a8df" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Exactly.</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I don't agree that a "+1" necessarily equates to a potential vote for any nominee. If that is the case, the allow me to clear that up quickly.</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Personally, I have "+1'd" or seconded candidates who were competing against each other for the same position. This approach is constant for me here and in other places.</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I base my vote primarily on candidate statements and/or my expectations and understanding of a candidate's ability. Not on how many candidates are running or the overall competitive landscape.</div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></div><div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I think this "+1'ing" is a sign of a healthy and vibrant democratic process in action and any other interpretation should not be encouraged, otherwise we are veering into dangerous territory.</div> <div style="width: 100%; font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br style="display:initial"></div> <div style="font-size: initial; font-family: Calibri, 'Slate Pro', sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sent from BlackBerry Q10</div> <table width="100%" style="background-color:white;border-spacing:0px;"> <tbody><tr><td colspan="2" style="font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> <div id="_persistentHeader" style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; font-family: Tahoma, 'BB Alpha Sans', 'Slate Pro'; font-size: 10pt;"> <div><b>From: </b>Dan Krimm</div><div><b>Sent: </b>Saturday, November 9, 2013 3:42 PM</div><div><b>To: </b>ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</div><div><b>Subject: </b>Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Election 2013</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(186, 188, 209); border-top-width: 1pt; font-size: initial; text-align: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><br><div id="_originalContent" style="">A modest proposal:<br><br>How about instituting the "non-exclusive '+1'"? ;-)<br><br>Also to be interpreted as the "+1 and keep 'em coming!"<br><br>I mean, this is sort of an extension of the idea of "seconding" a<br>nomination, except it now goes to "3rd-ing" and the whole set of positive<br>integers running out to infinity.<br><br>So if and when I "+1" a nomination here (and often I'm thinking it without<br>bothering to send the email explicitly) you can not necessarily assume I<br>will guarantee my eventual vote if there are several good candidates to<br>choose from on the ballot. Gotta choose only one at the end of the day,<br>but it's best when there is a good field to choose from. Endorsing a<br>nomination is not the same as endorsing for a vote.<br><br>Dan<br><br>PS: I think some people here may be adding their explicit "+1" simply to<br>indicate their enthusiastic participation in the community, and I interpret<br>that as a good thing too. I can't always be as active here as I'd like<br>these days, and when someone can actually get around to sending an email<br>that's sometimes a big deal in and of itself.<br><br><br><br><br>At 2:32 AM +0900 11/10/13, Adam Peake wrote:<br>>Milton, thank you. I agree (trying very hard not to use "+1")<br>><br>>Allow a nomination period, statement of interest, followed by endorsement.<br>><br>>Adam<br>><br>><br>><br>>On Nov 10, 2013, at 2:10 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>><br>>><br>>> -----Original Message-----<br>>> From: ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org<br>>>[mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria<br>>><br>>>> I see no problem with enthusiastic seconding. it is an NCUC tradition<br>>>>as far as I can tell - though<br>>>> i have not been a member for as long as thee.<br>>><br>>> It is a bit of a tradition, not just in NCUC but on a variety of civil<br>>>society lists. I frankly think it's a rather childish tradition - a<br>>>perfect example of slactivism / herd thinking on email lists! ;-)<br>>><br>>> FYI, we've seen this pattern many times before: at the beginning of a<br>>>nominating period someone nominates someone well-known and well-liked,<br>>>then there is an endless cascade of "+1s" or hoorays.<br>>><br>>> This makes it very easy for anyone who was thinking of nominating<br>>>themselves for the same position to simply give up and go away. I've seen<br>>>this happen, I have direct evidence for it across 3 different elections.<br>>>I and others been complaining about it for years, so please drop the<br>>>accusations. It really has nothing to do with who is being nominated.<br>>><br>>> If, as Ed astutely put it, you think we should be having elections with<br>>>more than one person in them, then you don't want to encourage<br>>>pre-emptive expressions of support, because it virtually guarantees that<br>>>whatever well-known person happens to throw their name out there first<br>>>wins. Usually this favors incumbents and well-known personalities but<br>>>discourages bringing in new people.<br>>><br>>> --MM<br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>>> Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br>><br>>_______________________________________________<br>>Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>>Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br>>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org<br>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br></div></body></html>