On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 07:49:43PM +0200, Tatiana Tropina ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

You make very good points. I'll comment on just a few inline.

> is it necessary to have the same number of candidates as seats?

Obviously not. Indeed it is not a good sign in any election.

But having *fewer* candidates than seats is even worse.

In a normal election there should be more candidates than seats,
preferably many more.

There's something unhealthy in the way NCSG elections tend to focus on
the nomination process, indeed often effectively decided at that point
rather than with voting.

We should encourage a culture where running for a position is never
seen as disrespectful towards other candidates, whether incumbents or
not, where losing an election is seen as normal part of democratic
process rather than something shameful - there's always another time.

> I think that this is very unfortunate that we didn't have enough
> nominations. It's very unfortunate that people didn't volunteer and
> come forward.

Yes. *That* is the real problem here.

To some extent it is due to the strange nomination-fear problem
you illustrated, and that might be fixable, perhaps.

Likewise if it's because people are too self-critical, think they're
not good enough: to those I say just give it a go, even if learning
curve is sometimes steep it's no rocket science, you can learn it.

If it is because people don't care, don't think the work is worth
doing, then we're in deep trouble.

> What I want to say now, as someone who is on the Council: NCSG
> members, we need you. We need those who can deliver. We want you to
> come forward and nominate yourself or be nominated, this year or
> next year, or in the next 5 years. We need people who can work and
> who can deliver. Please if you want to work - come forward and don't
> be afraid. If you are ready to work, you will get all help from the
> existing councillors.

Very well put!

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen