[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Election 2013

[Dan Krimm]

A modest proposal:

How about instituting the "non-exclusive '+1'"?  ;-)

Also to be interpreted as the "+1 and keep 'em coming!"

I mean, this is sort of an extension of the idea of "seconding" a
nomination, except it now goes to "3rd-ing" and the whole set of positive
integers running out to infinity.

So if and when I "+1" a nomination here (and often I'm thinking it without
bothering to send the email explicitly) you can not necessarily assume I
will guarantee my eventual vote if there are several good candidates to
choose from on the ballot.  Gotta choose only one at the end of the day,
but it's best when there is a good field to choose from.  Endorsing a
nomination is not the same as endorsing for a vote.

Dan

PS:  I think some people here may be adding their explicit "+1" simply to
indicate their enthusiastic participation in the community, and I interpret
that as a good thing too.  I can't always be as active here as I'd like
these days, and when someone can actually get around to sending an email
that's sometimes a big deal in and of itself.




At 2:32 AM +0900 11/10/13, Adam Peake wrote:
>Milton, thank you.  I agree (trying very hard not to use "+1")
>
>Allow a nomination period, statement of interest, followed by endorsement.
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>On Nov 10, 2013, at 2:10 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org
>>[mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>
>>> I see no problem with enthusiastic seconding.  it is an NCUC tradition
>>>as far as I can tell - though
>>> i have not been a member for as long as thee.
>>
>> It is a bit of a tradition, not just in NCUC but on a variety of civil
>>society lists. I frankly think it's a rather childish tradition - a
>>perfect example of slactivism / herd thinking on email lists! ;-)
>>
>> FYI, we've seen this pattern many times before: at the beginning of a
>>nominating period someone nominates someone well-known and well-liked,
>>then there is an endless cascade of "+1s" or hoorays.
>>
>> This makes it very easy for anyone who was thinking of nominating
>>themselves for the same position to simply give up and go away. I've seen
>>this happen, I have direct evidence for it across 3 different elections.
>>I and others been complaining about it for years, so please drop the
>>accusations. It really has nothing to do with who is being nominated.
>>
>> If, as Ed astutely put it, you think we should be having elections with
>>more than one person in them, then you don't want to encourage
>>pre-emptive expressions of support, because it virtually guarantees that
>>whatever well-known person happens to throw their name out there first
>>wins.  Usually this favors incumbents and well-known personalities but
>>discourages bringing in new people.
>>
>> --MM
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss