+1 Paul!

everyone had a chance to run as candidate. Why no more candidates were
(self)nominated?

Warm regards
Nuno

PS: Tapani, I did enjoyed the irony of your email :)

On 2 September 2016 at 22:03, Paul Rosenzweig <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Stephanie said: “We don't seem to have any mechanisms to do that [hold
> our leadership team accountable], other than this NOTA vote.”
>
>
>
> I guess this is where you lose me.  Why didn’t a fourth candidate run?  Or
> a 5th or 6th or 7th for that matter?  NOTA is a vote against a system
> that gives you choices you don’t like.  It makes sense in the context of a
> closed or semi-closed electoral system where the electoral choices are
> constrained (e.g. by party nominations).
>
>
>
> But we have as pure an open electoral system as you can imagine.  Anyone
> could self-nominate and be on the ballot with just one other “yes” from a
> single participant on this list.  Would not the best way to hold an
> underperforming councilor to task have been to run against him/her and win?
>
>
>
> In this way NOTA is insidious.  It is always easy to against something.
> It’s much easier to say “no” than to say “I’ll run and do it better” or
> “I’ll support someone else who has a better idea.”  I agree that NOTA isn’t
> a laughing matter – it’s too negative to be laughed at.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com
>
> My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
> *Stephanie Perrin
> *Sent:* Friday, September 2, 2016 3:14 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Election propaganda
>
>
>
> I do not regard this as a laughing matter.  In my opinion, this whole
> episode with NOTA has been about holding our leadership team accountable,
> to each other, to the membership, and to civil society as a whole.  We
> don't seem to have any mechanisms to do that, other than this NOTA vote.
> Some questions to candidates remained unanswered here, and I think that is
> a shame.  If people do not think these values are important, please don't
> vote for me, because I do, and I do not really wish to work this hard for
> an organization that does not think councilors need to be accountable for
> their speech and actions.  If you voted for me, there is still time to
> change your vote and vote for NOTA.  If you persist in voting for me, I can
> assure you I will not be laughing this off.  I will be pushing for greater
> transparency, reporting, and accountability of councilors, in all the
> activities they undertake on our behalf.  If this is not the easy-come,
> easy-go approach you are looking for in your leaders, vote NOTA, NOTME.
>
> For those in North America, have a great labour day weekend (everybody
> else should celebrate it too!!)
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>
>
> On 2016-09-02 5:19, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Hi Tapani
>
> While I realize your e-mail is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I think the time
> would have been better spent elaborating on your own achievements and most
> importantly giving us a sense of your vision for the future rather than
> bad-mouthing poor Nota.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 02/09/2016 06:09, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
> Warning: I'm not writing this as the Chair but as a candidate
> in the election. So this is campaigning, election propaganda:
> I am trying to influence how you vote.
>
> Amd I'm going to use the time-honoured means of badmouthing
> other candidates instead of praising myself.
>
> Specifically, I think one of the choices really sucks,
> namely None of the Above, also known as NOTA.
>
> OK, to be fair, NOTA might make a good Chair, at least he has never
> made any stupid mistakes, which is more than I can say for myself.
> And in the Chair election rules are actually slightly weighed against
> NOTA, as in case of a tie NOTA loses. I still think I'd be at least
> a bit better Chair than NOTA.
>
> But in council NOTA would not only be bad, in the council
> election he's got an unfair advantage in the rules, too.
>
> Suppose you like candidate X, don't care about others but
> are thinking whether or not to vote for NOTA as well.
>
> In any situation where it matters, that is, where X is in any danger
> of losing, voting X+NOTA rather than just X weakens X's chances of
> getting elected.
>
> To see this, consider a situation where all votes but yours
> have been counted and X is just one vote behind NOTA.
> (This is the only situation where your vote matters.)
>
> If you've voted for just X, X will catch up with NOTA and wins.
>
> If you've voted for X+NOTA, X remains one vote behind NOTA and loses.
>
> So if you think your vote matters in getting X elected,
> you should vote for just X, not for X+NOTA.
>
> You should vote for NOTA only if you are sure your favourite
> candidate(s) will get elected anyway and you just want to weaken other
> candidates' chances.
>
> Or, vote for NOTA if you think NOTA is *the* best choice and all others
> would be better off losing.
>
> Do *not* vote NOTA as a symbolic expression of dissatisfaction or
> anything like that. That's not what it's now for. If everybody votes
> for their favourite candidate(s) plus NOTA, the election will fail
> totally, nobody getting elected. That would not be good.
>
> And remember, you can still change your vote even if you've already
> voted: just vote again, only the last one counts.
>
>
>
>
>