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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and
motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
position is yours.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>

> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > 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.
>
> As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
> practice it can't work.  I voted on this nomination without comment.  If
> my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
> little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.
>
> The most important points can often be made with very few words.  That
> has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
> seldom at a loss for words.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>