Hi,

I am sorry but I am a little bit confused.

First, it has been established that NOTA votes have now foundation in 
the Charter, but that is is a addition that was thought would be useful 
and has become now a habit, but has no real legal status in the charter.

Now this is ignored by saying that if there are more NOTA votes then 
actual votes, voting has to start again, which gives the NOTA vote a 
legal status and actual effect that is not anchored in the charter.

Did I understand this right? If yes, we should stick with the 
interpretation that the NOTA vote is only an indication but has no legal 
weight. If we give NOTA votes legal weight and it happens the NOTA votes 
will require a re-election, in this case we open the door to every kind 
of legal objections. It is not a good idea to try to define the legality 
of votes and try to establish rules during the election process now.

The current process is flawed, we need to fix it before the next 
election, BUT we can not start defining the rules during the election 
itself and also we can not give precedence the weight of a principle 
established in the charter.

Fully committed to help work this out.

Yours

Klaus

On 8/22/2016 8:46 AM, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The way I always thought NOTA worked in a ranking election as we have
> for council, is that if someone picked NOTA instead of one candidate,
> they were saying they preferred no one to that person.
>
> If they picked NOTA instead of 2 or 3 they preferred NOTA to any of them.
>
> After the counting, the top n win (3 in this case), except that anyone
> who got fewer votes than NOTA would not.  If there were fewer people
> that 3 above NOTA, then we would need another election to fill the empty
> slot (s).
>
> Our various EC were supposed to write procedures defining all of this
> stuff years ago.  Unfortunately they have functioned more as membership
> committee than an EC doing the chartered work of proposing procedures as
> defined in the charter.
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
> On 22-Aug-16 08:23, James Gannon wrote:
>> Hi Tapani,
>>
>> In the absence of something in the charter, can you clarify what the situation is with regards to NOTA votes if NOTA places above a natural person in the final vote what is the situation?
>>
>> -James
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22/08/2016, 10:54, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:44:10AM +0000, James Gannon ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just on process where does the NOTA candidate come from with regards
>>>> to our charter, as it seems that the inclusion of a NOTA candidate
>>>> is not referenced anywhere.
>>> While NotA is not explicitly mentioned in the charter, it has been
>>> discussed in the past and an explicit NotA choice has been felt
>>> to be useful. I'm only following precedent here.
>>>
>>>> Also we have a serious election process flaw in that with the manner
>>>> in which NOTA is given is makes it impossible for us not to elect a
>>>> full slate of candidates if the number of candidates matches the
>>>> number of positions, which makes this essentially an acclimation.
>>> How so? You can select any number of candidates, up to three.
>>>
>>> Arguably NotA is redundant in that the practical effect is
>>> the same as not selecting any candidates, but in the past
>>> it has been considered better to have it as an explicit choice.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>