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

[Ray Saintonge]

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
>>