[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Election 2013

[Tapani Tarvainen]

+1 :-)

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 01:08:24PM -0400, Tracy Hackshaw @ Google (tracyhackshaw at gmail.com) wrote:

>    Exactly.
> 
>    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.
> 
>    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.
> 
>    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.
> 
>    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.
> 
>    Sent from BlackBerry Q10
> 
>    From: Dan Krimm
>    Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2013 3:42 PM
>    To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>    Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Election 2013
> 
>    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

> _______________________________________________
> 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