[Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is this "rule"; ignore all rules. There is a point to it. Particularly
in situations where an injustice is likely to happen, the blind following of
rules can be quite inhuman and at best an excuse for not thinking through
consequences and accepting responisibility.

When people are brave enough to vote, it can be expected that they can argue
their case as well. When they cannot, it is easy to argue that they do not
get the intricacies of a situation. When only the position of people is
known, the reason for such a position can be dramatically different. One
reason to vote against is that the argument is not taken far enough an other
reason is because the argument is taken too far.

Thanks,
       GerardM

2009/2/13 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod at mccme.ru>

> > Hoi,
> > When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
> > ignore
> > them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
> > decides
> > on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
> > this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
> > Thanks,
> >        GerardM
> >
> Hoi Gerrit,
>
> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> but are too shy of their English to express them.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>