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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is easy to prevent such a perception. It is just by referring to the vote
of someone else who provides the motivation you agree with. In this way you
prevent an unfortunate perception and you are not being tediously
repetitive.

The bottom line is that it is in your interest to guard your reputation by
preventing your association with positions that are not acceptable.. to you.
At the same time when unacceptable arguments are used, the person evaluating
the vote and the arguments has to have a clue as to your intentions. When
your motivation is valid but unknowable, you run the risk that your vote is
ignored.
Thanks,
       GerardM

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

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> My comments were directed to both sides of the issue.  I agree that the
> misperception which you describe is far too common, but so too is the
> tendency for being tediously repetitive.
>
> Ec
> > 2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge
> >
> >
> >> 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
>