Not that I want to interfere with the ongoing election process, but I've
got a feeling that my suggestions below are even more valid today than they
were in 1999.


* Forwarded (from: FTSC_PUBLIC) by Goran Eriksson using timEd/2 1.10.y2k+.
* Originally from Goran Eriksson (2:201/505.1) to Brent Shellenberg.
* Original dated: Fri Oct 22, 1999, 20:34

 BS> I figured, this being the FTSC, there just *had* to be a number of
 BS> silly "required format" things involved. :) 


    FIDONEWS 16-01               Page 4                    4 Jan 1999

     FTSC Nominations
     by Goran Eriksson, 2:201/505, get{at}get.pp.se

     When working with the preparations for the FTSC elections just
     concluded, it struck me how foreign the nomination process prescribed
     by FTA-1001 is to me.

     In my neck of the woods, the normal thing would be for candidates in
     FTSC elections to nominate themselves and present themselves and their
     merits. The electorate would be trusted to make a sound choice between
     the candidates based on that information and on other information
     available to each member of the electorate.

     Certainly, formal nomination procedures like those prescribed by
     FTA-1001 are sometimes used also around here.

     In other cases, the nomination procedure may formally be open, but you
     don't stand any real chance if you're not recommended by the appointed
     nomination committee.

     In an organization like the FTSC as well as the FidoNet as a whole,
     the norm would however be that anyone may nominate anyone. Even
     her-/himself. Seconded nominations may occur but are not required.


     I therefore suggest that FTA-1001 is changed accordingly.

     You're invited to take part in the discussion about this suggestion in
     the FTSC_PUBLIC echomail conference. That's where the FTSC has to seek
     consensus for changes like these.

___ 
 - Origin: GET, Lidingo, Sweden, +46-8-7655670 (2:201/505.1)

---