[Elections] Welcome New Elections Leader - Time to organize

[Ken Causey]

On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 13:52 -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> > From: Of Ken Causey
> >
> > I suggest going through the motions on a questionaire anyway.  If the
> > community only comes through with two questions, then those are the two
> > questions the community would like the nominees to address, fine.  The
> > primary point is to give the community the opportunity, the result is in
> > some sense secondary.
> > 
> > Regarding an IRC event.  You're right, that could be fun, I've done one
> > or two before.  However, witness the current battle to find a time that
> > 4 people (Edgar DeCleene, Matthew Fulmer, Keith Hodges, Colin Putney)
> > are going through to find a time that they can all meet and I think you
> > will find that any realtime event among a worldwide group is always
> > difficult and at best short of being complete (in terms of attendance).
> > Don't let that discourage you though, in my opinion it's the election
> > team's job to do a reasonable minimum of work to make these sorts of
> > things possible, really its the community's responsibility as a whole to
> > take advantage and the election team should accept any criticism and try
> > to accomodate it, but in the end it's just a matter of doing the best
> > job that just one or two people (the election team) can manage in their
> > spare time.
> 
> I suppose you are right about the time problems.  I guess the best way
> forward is to solicit questions personally to key individuals, and hope they
> have time to answer.  So now the question is could there be complaints about
> who we pick to ask questions?

Hmm.  I'm confused.  Why are you picking people to ask questions?
Actually I'm not sure if you are referring to who is 'asking a question'
or who is 'answering a question'.  In the first case it seems to me its
open to anyone in the community.  At the time you edit the questions it
would not bother me if you removed any asked by someone who can't even
vote (hopefully that wouldn't come up of course), but otherwise anyone
should be able to ask.  In the second case, every nominee should be
asked to answer every question.  Whether they choose to skip one or more
is up to each individual nominee, but they should all have the
opportunity to answer each and every question.  Or perhaps am I
misunderstanding?

> 
> > 
> > Sure.  I'm good with what I have heard so far.  If you don't mind I
> > would like an opportunity to proofread any official email you send out,
> > when there is time.  If nothing else a quick list of the points to be
> > covered would be good that way I can at least confirm that you are
> > covering what I think needs to be covered. ;)  In this case and in any
> > case if you will be working on something like an email where you would
> > like commentary/proofreading then I suggest that you just notify the
> > list as soon as possible so that those of us like myself that would like
> > the opportunity are aware that we may want to check email at times where
> > we don't tend to do so normally.
> > 
> 
> That sounds like a good idea.  
> 
> I heard from Göran and he said that he was available this afternoon to read
> over our emails.  I mentioned that if he couldn't make it we could just wait
> till Monday instead.

OK

> Ron

Ken

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/attachments/20080201/d06c1e24/attachment.pgp