Hi,

I think you make an important point about attendance at both Council
meeting and for the monthly council calls.

While I don't generally +1 nominations, though I did make an exception
for Tapani, thinking of it more as a second than another +1 and doing it
more to encourage him to stay on in a job that often goes
unappreciated.  But I am one who sees this practice as acceptable.  For
many of our member/participants, it is a time when they get to give
their opinions beyond just a vote.  I know that it has not stopped me
from encouraging others to run, in fact offering to nominate some who
who have not yet been nominated.  And I see no evidence that it stops
anyone from coming forward. 

I see it as very similar to a form of informal polling before the
election.  Yet another democratic activity.  And I hope that people do
not feel a need to stifle their participation even if it is just a +1.

avri


On 03-Aug-16 10:44, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>
> Having served on council now for two years, I think we should consider
> better how we want to run these elections.  DO people out there really
> understand the work we do on council?  How do we want our council
> members to act?  How do we want them to discuss issues on our monthly
> policy calls?  How collaborative should the decision making be?  How
> do we do succession planning and mentoring?  These are issues that are
> fundamentally important in my view, and should be discussed during the
> campaign, not relegated to nominee's statements.
>
> I agree with Niels and Milton that if expressions of support are
> suppressing candidates from coming forward, we need a rule against
> it.  We desperately need more people to run....there was only one
> contested seat the last time I ran, when gender balance and regional
> balance were taken into consideration.
>
> Best,
>
> Stephanie
>
>
> On 2016-08-03 10:24, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
>> Dear Milton.
>>
>> I agree that this is a very fine procedural point, that should be
>> managed clearly by the people responsible for the process, from the
>> first mail on, so as to allow for others to consider participating.
>> Maybe it should even become a written rule of internal netiquette.
>>
>> But in the meantime, coming from a Hyperdemocratic and
>> Hyper-freedom-of-expression rights country like Costa Rica (and the
>> re-election being a possibility for some incumbents)  I done´t see
>> anything wrong in feeling the temperature of the room early on as a
>> way to recognise how hard some of them have worked in the past. We
>> might have chosen the wrong place to make this type of comments, but
>> space should be available for making them in the list anyhow. Maybe
>> just under a different heading, like “I don´t like the re-election of
>> incumbents” for example.
>>
>> Now, do we have an explicit rule as suggested by Niels and you? How
>> and where do we express our support for that rule? Should we draw a
>> redline and asked for a renewed call for the election process with
>> the new rule and forget the past? Lets be practical and move forward
>> ASAP.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8837 7176
>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
>> On 3 Aug 2016, at 8:11, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>>> I second Niels's views. I have refrained from expressing any opinion
>>> about the nominations until the nominations are closed and we are
>>> discussing candidate statements. I have always done so.
>>>
>>> --MM
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:30 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: +1's and support
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> Even though I think the regular display of +1's is a signal of
>>>> mutual support
>>>> and camaraderie. I have the feeling that sometimes it is drowning
>>>> out other
>>>> discussions about content on the list.
>>>>
>>>> May I also remind people that the voting happens later, so the
>>>> candidates
>>>> need your support is even more then.
>>>>
>>>> I'm greatly looking forward to the statements of the candidates.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Niels
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>> Head of Digital
>>>>
>>>> Article 19
>>>> www.article19.org
>>>>
>>>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>>>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus