+1.  Further to that, in response to Klaus' last email, I think I am 
trying to be constructive.  I don't think it is helpful to dismiss the 
concerns expressed by quite a few members of NCSG with "Its time to move 
on, its time to be constructive."

I would still like an answer to the question I posed a while ago.  To 
me, this is a great example of how we fail to communicate effectively as 
a management team here at NCSG.  Absent a clear reason NOT to accede to 
the request, and I have yet to see one, why on earth turn this into a 
process fracas?  I have repeated my question below, highlighted in 
larger type.

Stephanie Perrin

During the all candidates meeting, I ventured to suggest that things 
were not as bright and sunny as they appeared.  Obviously, this fracas 
over voting and transparency of council positions is confirming my 
assessment of the situation.  I am disappointed in a number of things, 
process is only one.   I cannot see why, on day one of the election, the 
EC of NCSG (or the Chair, who is also running for election) is refusing 
to comply with a rather simple request. What is everyone afraid of in 
changing the ballot? As someone applying to serve for two more years, I 
think blocking a request for changing the ballot does much to promote 
distrust.  Surely, as Klaus has said, we have a lot of important work to 
do.  However, trust, accountability, and making this electoral process 
as useful as it can be is worth reissuing a ballot in my view.  Dredging 
up procedural reasons not to, given how we have relied on informal 
mechanisms and email discussion of process (rather than changing the 
Charter and Bylaws) strikes me as a waste of time, except insofar as it 
illuminates the Charter work we need to do.

However, it is certainly helping with engagement, and given Neal's 
expertise in voting and elections perhaps he will volunteer with helping 
in redrafting these documents after the election!



On 2016-08-22 16:37, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Klaus,
>
> You still haven’t pointed me towards any text in the charter that prohibits the use of NOTA. :)
>
> And also:
>
>> On Aug 22, 2016, at 10:17 PM, Klaus Stoll <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Amr
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. My thoughts are:
>>
>> We need to go religiously by the charter and what the NCSG-EC does.
> My point is that I believe that this has been done using NOTA over the past few years. In fact, I believe that the changes being suggested now conflict with the charter, because the EC hasn’t approved the procedures being introduced during this election cycle. I do not believe that it is right or in the best interest of the NCSG for us to wait until after the elections to challenge this.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr