- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 13:43:07 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 05/05/2014 13:22, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > There have been specific complaints about people sending "campaigning" > emails to AC reps - which is against the terms of access to the list. I > have always considered doing so inappropriate, and it appears I'm not > alone. There has recently been a move toward people clarifying their > positions in open discussion, which I think is a positive way to get > more information on candidates, but I frankly don't support encouraging > "election campaigns". I disagree so much with what you wrote above I am a bit shocked, I must say. So it's an election but candidates cannot present themselves. What kind of election and electoral system is that? I don't care what ACs think or don't think of campaigning and I don't care about the terms of the list because candidacy statements allow to highlight strategies and often issues that remained under the radar. If candidates cannot use the only way of contacting all ACs they have, the election process is biased because people who contributed little to the AC Forum have strictly no chance of making their points. FURTHERMORE, I remind you Members can nominate *anyone* to the AB election, including people who are *not* ACs. In that case, they contributed *nothing* to the AC Forum and enforcing the mailing-list terms would mean they just cannot campaign at all. FWIW, Samsung's nominee to the current AB election is _not_ our AC-Rep. Let's be serious. If we use the term "election" and campaigning is forbidden by the terms of the AC Forum, the terms of the AC Forum have to be changed. Period, from my POV. </Daniel>
Received on Monday, 5 May 2014 11:43:33 UTC