[NCUC-EC] Conduct of the NCUC Election

Sun Oct 6 18:29:34 CEST 2013

Hello,

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Oct 6, 2013, at 6:14 AM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Should we concerned about the propriety of any EC member on the ballot
> contacting folks individually as an EC member asking them to vote? Does
> this give the EC member an advantage in a contested election?
>
>
> Hmm...a few of us have done this in the past but I thought maybe some
> wouldn't take the time again so I suggested the EC.  But I guess you're
> right, times have changed and this might not be advisable.
>

Of course, it might be a good idea that those of us, if any, not standing
for re-election agree to do this. It's a good idea sans the conflicts.

>
> In terms of the dates, I reiterate my opposition to this schedule. I feel
> the current EC should work without the distraction of an election through
> to CD.
>
>
> What work would the EC be doing for this meeting that would be distracted
> by an election?
>

Bill, you've posted that you are "leaning heavily toward making a change",
presumably meaning you would not be returning as Chair. I'll state that I'm
in the same situation, accepting a nomination only if the group dynamics
had promise of change. Tapani has posted he will not be deciding until
after the IGF. Others have not released any public statements, but I've
privately been told there is uncertainty about some members intentions.
Given what folks have said, it is entirely possible the entire EC will be
certain lame ducks on CD. I do not think that is a good idea.

> Again, the later we do this, the later the new EC gets going, and there
> will be a lot to do before Singapore.
>

If I'm not mistaken, our terms run until mid December regardless of the
date of the election.

>  And nobody at the CD will have a clue what the new EC might look like,
>

Except for those running unopposed they still won't. Let's wait to the
results to be announced.

> which could limit the discussion a bit.
>

Which is good in that it allows the current EC to be the focus of
discussion during its term.

>  Getting a little clarity sooner than later would also help in dealing
> with staff and others.
>

I doubt staff really cares about who is running for what. They want to know
who they'll be dealing with going forward, something that won't be known
until the results are announced.

> Why we should rush through a bylaws revision that doesn't have to happen
> quickly
>

Hmmm...we agreed at out initial bylaws meeting on Thursday  that we'd be
going to the Membership in December 2014. I'm not sure a fourteen month
gestation period counts as rushed, but we all see things differently. I'll
also note that our initial timetable, one that resulted in going to the
Members in November of this year , was one that you proposed on August 6th.
I certainly agree with you that a Bylaws revision must be done in a
measured, open and non-rushed manner.

Then, again, I  received an e-mail from one of our leading and most
experienced members (to whom I had reached out)  chiding you,  me and the
other members of the EC for waiting this long to start a bylaws revision.
"This work should have started months ago...I can see why it's practical to
only hold by-laws votes during elections, but this delay will cost NCUC an
entire year".

Again, everything is perspective.

> but delay an election which should is beyond me, but whatever, it doesn't
> matter enough to merit cycles of debate.  But Glen has to be available to
> start it, so that'd mean a launch no earlier than Tuesday 3 December, so
> instead of
>
>
>> October 21-November 7: Nominations submitted to ncuc-discuss (2 1/2
>> weeks, negates the IGF distraction)
>> November 8-21: Nominees submit statements (BA attendees would have a week
>> prior, and can advance plan, nominations having gone on for weeks before)
>> November 22- December 5: Election period
>> December 6: Results announced
>>
>
> we could do like
>
> November 1 or 5 - November 18: Nominations submitted to ncuc-discuss
>  (depends if we want more than 2 weeks)
> November 19 (CD) - December 2: Nominees submit statements
> December 3 - 16: Election period
> December 17: Results announced
>
> Sound ok?
>

First of all, thanks for listening. I like compromise, it's the only way to
get things done.

I'd suggest one small change and then we can call in the band and
celebrate: Could we change November 18 to November 19 and November 19 to
November 20? Who knows?: Maybe potential candidates would like to see what
we do on one of our three Constituency Days before deciding to jump in?
That would also forestall the possibility of a crew of certain lame ducks
leading the discussion.

If we do that I think we have a schedule better than I proposed and better
than you proposed.  It's the wonderful thing that happens when people work
together in a spirit of co-operation and mutual respect.

Kind Regards,

Ed

>
> On Oct 5, 2013, at 10:31 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>
> wrote:
>
>
> Alternatively, since NCUC membership is by definition a subset
> of NCSG membership, we could use NCSG's check, i.e., define
> an NCUC member to be in good standing if they're so in NCSG.
>
>
> We've not done that before and NCUC members who didn't respond to Robin's
> NCSG check in had no expectation that they'd be disqualified from voting in
> the NCUC election as well.  I don't see what the advantage would be of
> potentially disenfranchising and annoying members and then having to back
> track and figure out a solution on the listserv.
>
> Glad to hear your data base has all the emails and is clear on org size
> etc, should make things operationally a lot more manageable.  We just need
> to get it in shape then to send to Glen to input into their system.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-ec mailing list
> Ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20131006/feec9898/attachment.html>