<div dir="ltr">I'm not aware of the details of the allegation of hostility, it's a bit hard to people unaware of what you are referring to to judge your claim. Without that evidence, it sounds like you might be drawing a bit of a long bow here.<div><br></div><div>That said, the amount of information on the candidates is, in many cases, virtually nil. Only those with direct experience working with or interacting with the candidates can really judge their appropriateness for a particular position. I presume this me result in very low voter turnout, an the organisation being essentially run by a smaller group 'in the know'. I think that's not ideal. </div><div><br></div><div>If the resources were there to support it, I think it would be far better if there were clearer candidate information available, including any organisational affiliations being declared. On the other hand, many people will be applying for the role in their individual capacity and not wish to be particularly strongly associated with their employer. We are all more than what we do at work, and for many I would expect that working with LA would be a welcome opportunity to pursue something independent from their salary source.</div><div><br></div><div>If there's a specific substantive concern here, I would suggest perhaps the details are relevant and maybe there is some room for a discussion. However, nothing that anyone has said so far raises serious alarm bells for me. I definitely don't think anyone has acted against the spirit of the election.</div><div><br></div><div>In my view, each candidate should have the opportunity to fill in a pro-forma statement form, leading to about a one-page overview of their qualifications and background. I do not anticipate that there are sufficient resources to make this a reality.</div><div><br></div><div>Which leads to an even bigger question: to what degree should LA invest in its administrative overheads, and how should that funding be supplied? Nothing happens without cost. Also, would LA risk moving away from being a grassroots organisation if it did increase its status? Do its members want that?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 December 2014 at 10:06, Steve Walsh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@nerdvana.org.au" target="_blank">steve@nerdvana.org.au</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Hi David<br>
<br>
On 12/18/2014 08:15 AM, David Williams wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Yes, that's me!</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I find that your failure to disclose your affiliation with a media
organisation that has a long history of hostility towards the
organisation in your nomination statement a bit concerning. I'm sure
you'd understand that those of us who have interactions with various
employees of the publication might take such an oversight like this,
as accidental as it might be, in an unfortunately negative light.<br>
<br>
Perhaps it might be worthwhile for the council in 2015 (whoever that
might be) to kick off a discussion on the policy on the relevant
list and/or lists with the intent to require any members standing
for council election to disclose organisational affiliation?<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
linux-aus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus" target="_blank">http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">--------------------------------------------------<br>Tennessee Leeuwenburg<br><a href="http://myownhat.blogspot.com/">http://myownhat.blogspot.com/</a><br>"Don't believe everything you think"</div>
</div>