Hi

We’ve had the same discussion about +1s during previous election cycles and have always ended up in the same place, no agreement.  Of course we don’t want to limit peoples’ freedom of expression, but of course we don’t want those expressions to discourage new people from standing for election.  Re: the latter, I’d just echo what Dan says:

> On Aug 4, 2016, at 01:04, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I think it's worth pointing out that my sense of the veterans here is that
> they are generally welcoming to energetic newcomers, the more the merrier
> as long as you are prepared to dig in and share some heavy lifting.

For as long as I’ve been in NCUC/NCSG veterans have been almost constantly racking their brains over how to get more 'energetic newcomers' involved.  Pretty much every time there’s a discussion of a working group, public comment period, or whatever else that needs doing, the conversation ends up at ‘we need more people!’  Not just to come to meetings and occupy posts, but to roll up their sleeves and help.  A number of small steps have been taken in recent years with travel support & membership engagement initiatives, and we have in fact broadened participation (e.g. multiple people in ‘positions’ that weren’t members a few years ago), but there’ll always be much more needed and yet a limit to what overstretched volunteers can do.  

Absent a ‘solution,’ perhaps at least those of us who are or have recently been in elected positions could consider refraining from +1s during the nomination period, so as avoid any misunderstandings and inadvertently contributing to deterring new candidacies?  I guess I’ll do this, and trust the incumbents won’t take it as a lack of support for their nominations.

Cheers

Bill