[chapter-delegates] I object to the 2005 ISOC Nominations Committee process (was Report of the 2005 ISOC Nominations)

[Gene Gaines]

David,

I appreciate your positive email (below).

But this is a step in a voting process.

It deserves the cold light of day.

I rush to say that I do not fault Margaret. She was the chair
of the Nomination Committee; I assume she did not control the
committee or attempt to push a specific agenda.

I apologize for upsetting people. I am sure that you David,
also Veni and Margaret would prefer that I not be so impolite
and confrontive.

I DO FAULT THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE,
AND IN PARTICULAR THE PROCESS USED.

Let us look just one element of the PROCESS.

I quote from Margaret's explanation:

>On April 2, 2005, 2:08:42 PM, Margaret wrote:

> We received 35 complete nominations. Of those 35 nominations,
> 8 were explicitly nominated for the Chapter election, 11 were
> explicitly nominated for the Organizational Member election,
> and the remaining 17 nominations did not specify a particular
> election.

What?

How can nominations that did not specify whether they wished to
serve as a representative of (a) Chapters or (b) Organizational
Members possibly be considered as complete nominations?

It appears to me the committee chose to either ignore or act
against the wishes of Chapters.

That is my perception. So that is on the table. Enough.
I will not discuss this by email again.

I care deeply about the role ISOC has to play in our world,
and I will push to make ISOC and its chapters stronger, more
effective, more open to all groups, and more democratic.

Now let us work and do some constructive changing and healing,
particularly so this conflict over the election/nomination
process will not happen again.

Gene Gaines


On Wednesday, April 6, 2005, 4:53:40 PM, David wrote:

> Gene, you and I have met several times and I hope it is
> clear from our meetings that I hold you in high respect. I
> do.

> I also have only the highest regard and respect for Veni -
> I believe he knows that and many others do with whom I
> speak. I consider Veni a good friend. 

> And one final person to note from your e-mail: Margaret. I
> hold her in exactly that high level of respect. Three good
> people all working to help the Internet Society reach its
> goals. That is why I cannot for the life of me understand
> the tenor that sometimes grips this list. It gets
> discouraging.

> I was not privy to the work of the NomComm but I could
> gather from a distance that they worked hard, took pains to
> be comprehensive and fair, and faced a very, very difficult
> task. It is not easy to select a few candidates from a list
> of highly quailfied and willing candidiates.

> As a reservist in the US Navy in the past I was called on
> to pass on who would be promoted to Captain - we had loads
> of qualified people to take up very few slots. It is not
> easy work - it almost always is thankless. 

> To suggest that the motive here was to silence Veni is a
> grand leap that you have no reason to postulate other than
> emotion. Or is there more? I too feel an emotional tie to
> Veni but I realize there is a large world out there and
> having candidiates from other parts of it is not on its
> face unreasonable. And our process does wisely have a
> petition element to it. 

> I love our community - I just wish we could be more
> communal at times. 

> David

--- snip ---