[NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline

[avri doria]

Hi,

As far as I can tell, people are tending toward the free for all first
round with as many candidates as can be put forward and then a second
ballot between the top 2.

I was not all that supportive of this at first, but after seeing how it
was developing, decided i could live with it.  Let a 1000 candidates
pull their head up above the sand and then let the two least unpopular
(aka top vote getters) go head to head.  And if that leaves us without a
pick because of the super majority rule and block voting, then leave the
seat empty until we find someone we can compromise on.

avri



On 15-Feb-17 08:35, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Unless my memory’s failing me, when we put Markus and Bill Graham on
> the board we worked out SG positions internally and then went
> external.  It seemed from the RP that folks in Iceland decided to
> instead have constituencies come out with their own nominations
> without coordinating first at the SG level.  Is that correct?  If so,
> you could then have five different groups putting forward pet
> nominees, including their own people, which could unnecessarily sow
> discord intra-SG and would make coming to early consensus within each
> SG a lot harder.  It would open the door to self-referential actions,
> more complicated negotiations, and a consequent obsession with
> defining procedural arcana. 
>
> Could someone closer to the action please clarify how we are
> proceeding and, if it’s the above model, what the plan is for
> overcoming potential problems in order to get timely intra-SG agreement?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>> On Feb 14, 2017, at 19:46, Tapani Tarvainen
>> <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear PC members,
>>
>> As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the
>> timeline and process for NCPH Board member election.
>>
>> We had a session today about it here in Reykjavík without conclusion,
>> but it really needs to be decided within a few days.
>>
>> I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing
>> there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time:
>> two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed.
>> Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it
>> in the time we have.
>>
>> I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is
>> possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to
>> get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly
>> desirable.
>>
>> Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide
>> what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG.
>>
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> <2017 Board Seat 14 Election Timeline 13 February
>> 2017.docx>_______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
> ************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus