[PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Dear PC members,

Please express your preferences quickly. We really need
to decide this fast.

In the end I don't think this matters all that much, either
option will work as an incentive to resolve the issue,
which is the main point.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

On Nov 06 23:24, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> I believe it will politicize the NCAs even more than they already are. Yes
> it is unfortunate that selecting option 1 puts pressure on the chair and the
> other vice chair....but it does not trouble me that they will be putting
> pressure on our house to get its act together.
> 
> SP
> 
> 
> On 2016-11-06 21:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > One additional point here I forgot to mention: in option 2
> > there's the NCA clause, so if CSG tries to play dirty we
> > could invoke that and have the NCA as VC until they give up.
> > 
> > Of course some future NCA might be disastrous but still
> > I don't see option 2 being any better for CSG than for us.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Nov 06 14:46, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Avri,
> > > 
> > > Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
> > > next round - in the long term it'd balance out.
> > > 
> > > And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
> > > because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.
> > > 
> > > Tapani
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no v-chair in
> > > > after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2 you
> > > > can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs, which
> > > > means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their advantage.
> > > > 
> > > > I recommend option 1.
> > > > 
> > > > avri
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> > > > > so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and would
> > > > > rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > > > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12 we
> > > > > > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To recap, the choices were like this:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting only,
> > > > > > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the NCA;
> > > > > > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > > > > > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Opinions?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Tapani
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
> > > > > > <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Dear Tapani
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this morning's NCPH
> > > > > > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to progress the
> > > > > > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects its
> > > > > > preferred
> > > > > > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with that choice.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Could you please let us know your decision.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ----- End forwarded message -----