On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:30:32PM +0200, Tatiana Tropina ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> I wrote my email because it seems that there was not enough understanding
> why the current process has flaws. I think from your email it is clear now
> that the process has serious issues.
> I do not think it is a right thing to say that it's ok that if we have
> three candidates for three seats all of them will be elected and shrug our
> shoulders about this.
> I personally never voted in GNSO elections before so I didn't know about
> the flaws in this process, and I assume some people didn't know too. And of
> course we didn't know that the only way to fix this process is to run as
> the 4th or 5th candidate.

I am somewhat surprised at this.

That is the case in almost all elections anywhere.

Some do have special provisions, thresholds that have to be met and
rules for having new election if that fails to happen, but they are
the exception.

> I bring up again the issue brought by James and Matt: the process is not
> due and needs to be fixed.

If you have any concrete proposals as to how it can be fixed I would
be very interested in hearing about them.

I very much agree it is not good not to have more candidates. But I
really don't see any way that could be avoided by any change of rules.
If people don't want to run, we can't force them to.

How we could get more people to run, that is the question.

Somehow I don't think people would be more inclined to run if
the rules of the election made getting elected more difficult
by requiring thresholds to be met: failure there would be
rather embarrassing.

I could be wrong there, of course. Again, concrete proposals for
change would be welcome.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen