> -----Original Message-----

> 

> A ballot has been duly and timely issued by the Chairman of the NCSG



And as soon as it was made public it was challenged. The appeal only happened when the chair refused to listen to those challenges, and refused to hold an EC meeting to discuss them, and ended list discussions before one EC member in the Australian time zone could even participate in the discussion. 



This was all quite bad and provocative. And so, an appeal was duly and timely issued by a group that easily exceeded the charter threshold.



> I have duly cast my vote as have others. I fully expect my vote (and your vote)

> to be counted and our election to continue.



That's nice. This is not terribly relevant, though. Many of the people issuing the challenge have also voted, this is how they noticed that the ballot did not allow them to express their preferences. Just today I have heard from two more members who are completely confused by the ballot.



> There is an appeal, as you note, and that appeal must be evaluated by the

> NCSG EC. But that appeal, in and of itself, cannot interrupt the election now in

> progress.



You are missing the point. I guess Paul did, too. You can go ahead with the current election or you can suspend it, it doesn't really matter, because the election will have no effect until the appeal is settled. 



If the EC and the appellants cannot reach an agreement, then the matter will have to be settled by a vote of the membership. That is inarguably the case, it is black-letter charter words. So it makes the most sense to suspend the election, because it is a pointless exercise unless things are resolved tomorrow. Hopefully, things will be resolved tomorrow. But it's possible they will not. 



And while the charter does not require us to suspend the election now, neither does it prevent us from suspending it. What is clear is that if there is no agreement between the appellants and the EC the election has no effect, because the dispute about the ballot will have to go to a vote of the membership. So whatever you do, the results of this election are suspended until the appeal is resolved.



> We agree 



Who is "we" - you and Tapani?



> that review of this appeal is now the job of the full EC. If you reason

> that the EC needs to act by Full Consensus, I respectfully submit that such a

> Full Consensus must be brought to bear to stop the election already in

> progress, not to continue it.



Nice try. But it doesn't work. You clearly do not understand the implications of what the absence of full consensus means in this case. It means that the entire EC has to agree how to resolve this, else the issue will have to be resolved by vote of the entire membership. That's what the charter says. 



So let's suppose that we go ahead with the election and suppose further that there is no agreement tomorrow and Tapani (and you) continue to waste everyone's time and energy and good will with your unwillingness to spend 30 minutes changing the ballot or make any overtures to the critics of this process.



Whoever "wins" that council vote is not on the council and whoever wins the chair vote is not the chair. 

The election will not be decided until the entire membership votes again on the appeal. If the appellants win the membership vote, then the election will have to be held again, with a proper ballot. If the appeal loses the membership vote then, and only then, will that election be final.



Do you understand now?



Let me make one final appeal to you, Kathy. If we are forced to go to a full-membership vote to resolve the appeal, do you think anyone is going to be happy? I see a month of divisive arguing and at the end whoever loses that vote - and we don't know who it is going to be - is going to be bitter and angry at the other side for some time to come. Do you think it will be a positive, building experience for this group? 



What, then, do you think you are accomplishing by defending a ballot and ballot instructions that confuse half of our membership and prevent them from expressing their preference NOT to have one or more of the Council candidates elected?  What is it that stops you from making some simple changes that would resolve these concerns?



Are you afraid that a candidate you favor might actually lose to "None of the Above"? That's pretty unlikely, but it could happen. Do you think rigging the election to prevent that is really worth all the anxiety and divisiveness that you are causing? Have you ever heard of the concept of a Pyrrhic victory? How much credibility will the people elected in your way have with the broader stakeholder group?



You don't need to answer me on list, but you do need to answer to your own conscience.