<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Nuno, i agree with you that this discussion should not be focused on travel funding as it has the potential of telling people to seek positions in order to benefit from travel funding at NCUC. This is not true because one does not need to be an elected officer to benefit from travel funding. Members who have proven to be active in our work were easily able to convince (actually their work spoke for them) the EC and get travel support. <div><br></div><div>And i am currently divided between the fact that we need to discuss potential issues with this situation now or at least after the end of David’s term at NCUC. As Tapani said, we don’t know yet whether there will really be an issue with David holding these two elected positions. Time may prove me wrong though.</div><div><br></div><div>As i said before the election, i think David has a plan and he is fully aware of all aspects related to this job that he has taken (including workload, the danger of not being honest/accountable or not being fully into one constituency but being divided to support both etc). </div><div><br></div><div>The least we can do, imo, is to see what this will lead to (and we have at least a year) and only judge him (or the situation) afterwards. Many of our members have expressed their fears, raised red flags which is good as it gives us a list of things to look at during David’s term at NCUC EC. I urge everyone to keep this thread in mind and hold David and all the other elected officers accountable.</div><div><br></div><div>Though this is a new situation that has never occurred before, i suggest we stay open, use it to learn and change should it fail or adopt it should it prove to be a good thing. Personally, i am not afraid to try new approaches and this is just one i want to try. A year from now, we will have more reasons to revise our charters but not sure we have enough now.</div><div><br></div><div>If you decide to have this conversation in Barcelona (something i wouldn’t encourage), i wish you good luck and look forward to the outcomes.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Arsene<br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br>On 11 Oct 2018, at 01:24, Nuno M. Garcia <<a href="mailto:ngarcia@ngarcia.net">ngarcia@ngarcia.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">I fully agree with Tapani.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And also I need to say this: bringing this discussion now is not good for David, not for the ncuc, and most importantly, it's not good for any of us. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If this is a principles matter, it should be handled as such, i.e., the name of none of us should ever be used as an example.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">David was elected in a regular and fair election. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Putting him at stake is a huge disrespect for all of those who took part in the election.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Any problems, real or potential, should have been dealt with before the election, not now.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Finally, this email thread looks like a third class soap opera. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let's get this serious again, please, it feels that it's all about the traveling funds...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Warm regards</div><div dir="auto">Nuno</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 22:31 Tapani Tarvainen <<a href="mailto:ncuc@tapani.tarvainen.info">ncuc@tapani.tarvainen.info</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This discussion has become a bit weird. After all:<br>
<br>
* There's nothing in any bylaws or charters against being in NCUC EC<br>
and NPOC EC at the same time.<br>
<br>
* There's no inherent conflict of interest between NCUC and NPOC, and<br>
should there be such in some individual case, David presumably will<br>
recuse himself.<br>
<br>
* David make his plan perfectly clear before the election, voters knew<br>
it and voted him in.<br>
<br>
Admittedly this is a completely new situation, and it is an open<br>
question how well it will work, but NCUC members have chosen to let<br>
David try it. If it does cause problems, by all means let's fix them,<br>
but I find it odd people are saying we should try to prevent this<br>
situation from reoccurring before we've seen how it works out now.<br>
<br>
As for travel slots, I would find it inappropriate if David were to<br>
declare he'll only accept them from one constituency. Whatever he<br>
does, he should treat NCUC and NPOC as equally as possible. Of course<br>
this situation calls for more cooperation and coordination between<br>
NCUC and NPOC ECs than before, but I don't think that's a bad<br>
thing.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Tapani Tarvainen<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Ncuc-discuss mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss">https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>