[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01097: Re: [WDDM] Re: "Code of condunct" [WDDM] Elections

From: "Annette Jackson" <aja95799(at)bigpond.net.au>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 20:25:41 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Re: "Code of condunct" [WDDM] Elections

Filia, l am unsure what you are talking about,whether it's the language translation,the comment about Sen. Mike Gravel was to Mirek,about a recent e.mail he sent,
Regards Martin
----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:28 PM
Subject: [WDDM] Re: "Code of condunct" [WDDM] Elections

Hello everyone,

I wish to bring something forward, triggered by Martin's email below. (I've pasted Mirek's most recent email below Martin's.)

For the sake of transparency, I think it's good to clarify oneself right away if one brings something in. These need only be one or two lines.

Transparency - that of course also being essential in a (direct) democratic community.


Otherwise one creates a "voice of power": throw something in and others follow just because you said so. Or: throw something in as if y o u don't have to deliberate with other people.


---
I entirely agree with Mark and Mirek on the hybrid vote proposal, for the same reasons as Mark has explained so well.


With kind regards,
Filia



Op 3-mei-07 om 10:58 heeft Martin Jackson het volgende geschreven:

Mirek,
the secret vote l believe would be the best,
Regards Martin Jackson

P.S. Sen. Mike Gravel - Is a fairly amazing person


Van: wbm@world-wide-democracy.net
Onderwerp: Antw.: [WDDM] Elections
Datum:
3 mei 2007 5:35:59 GMT+02:00
Aan: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Antwoord aan: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net


All:
Sorry for misinterpreting Filia's e-mail. Below is her further detailed clarification and Jiri's.
I just wanted to make sure that everybody is comfortable with the process, even if the details of the process may not matter that much (at this stage) to most people. But consensus and creation of trust may matter, and are probably helped with taking time to clarify things.
But as Mark agreed, I still think that the hybrid vote proposal is a good one for this election, because it may accommodate more people.

Filia: thanks for your support. I really wanted to take a break from WDDM organizing for a while. I am still willing to continue to take care of the website.
As for the number of Board members, the Charter we approved calls only for 3. But this can be changed, and so the candidates who ended up on the 4th, 5th, etc. place can be co-opted later.
To accommodate these two suggestions of yours, I'll but blank fields on the voting form, so that anybody can nominate (and vote for) additional candidates.
Again if I won't receive any objections against it soon.

More detailed instruction, and the announcement of the "official" start of the elections will follow later.

Mirek



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [WDDM] Elections]
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:41:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Filia den Hollander <holla(at)xs4all.nl>

Hi Mirek,

You requested a clarification, here mine is.

Again (as in his former email), Bruce has put it as it is for me. I'm not
voting for or against a secret ballot. Even if it were a secret ballot, I
would still be able to be entirely open about the votes I cast.

The point is that so far being a board member is no prestigious job at
all. So if I vote for,say, b a k e r Johnson, then bu t c h e r Jones
and/or his friends would probably not give me dirty looks. (And even if
they did, I would still be able to explain how I've reasoned and came to a
particular decision. So then it's a matter for THEM to ask me for
explanations or not...)


Second, and this is a standpoint I've explained before on other issues. In
an "organization" like this, we can be happy AT ALL that people want to
start any practical activity - whether it be the creation of a board or
start a local campaign (this has also been a point that Leopoldo Salgui
made in Prague, I picked it up from him). So I simply wish to support
initiatives.

The amount of board members is an issue to me (not too many to guarantee
good quality discussions), as well as who are in it. Mirek and Mark Antell
are my favorites, for they are the ones who in my personal view manage to
bring things forward and who do so in a friendly manner and who have a
good deal of patience. (That's more or less my definition of leadership.)
As Mark Antell is already on the list, I expressed my preference to also
include Mirek.

(And five board members instead of six is okay to me too.)


If you feel the above should be public, you have my consent to send this
message to public WDDM list.
I will not clarify further on this. If there is any "shortage" I hope Jiri
will fill in what is still unclear.



(To sum up: Most of us are doing a fine job, but sometimes it's just too
hairsplitting to me. I try to keep track on the broad lines.)


With kind regards,
Filia den Hollander


===========================

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [WDDM] Elections]
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 18:47:39 +0200
From: Jiri Polak <jiri.polak(at)swipnet.se>


Again, I see things exactly as Filia. I support whatever decision the chief activists will make. I am focusing on work in Czech Republic and the newsletter.
Sincerely, Jiri



[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]