[FAmSCo] Fwd: FAmSCo chair election.

[Christoph Wickert]

Hi,

I had sent this to Giannis directly earlier today, but I think all of
FAmSCo should read it.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert at gmail.com>
Date: 2016-03-02 8:28 GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: [FAmSCo] FAmSCo chair election.
To: Giannis Konstantinidis <giannis at konstantinidis.cc>


2016-02-24 19:09 GMT+01:00 Giannis Konstantinidis <giannis at konstantinidis.cc>:
> Hey Cristoph,
>
> On February 24, 2016 at 6:46 PM Christoph Wickert
> <christoph.wickert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I cannot cast my vote because I consider the whole vote
> flawed. We hardly had a quorum when the candidates were nominated.
>
> But you have never complained or said anything about the nomination process.
> Until now.

I'm sorry I spoke up so late, but I don't think the timing changes the
validity of my concerns. I still think an election is built on sand if
not everybody was able to run. Given that we actually had a nomination
that was not considered, one even might call the election
illegitimate.

> According to the meeting log, somebody wanted to nominate me, but
> nobody ever bothered to reach out to me.
>
> Excuse me, but did you ever bother to participate in this committee?

Yes, I do bother. A lot. For years. Please don't confuse being
interested with currently being able to timely respond to mails or
able to attend a meeting.

I already explained that I currently cannot attend. When I selected
this time slot, I did so because I was unable to predict real life
changes and wanted to make sure we reach a consensus.  In earlier
polls we had to ask people to extent their hours and it took several
iterations to find a slot. I could have simply selected less or just
my personal favorites like others, but this would have made things
harder for all of us.

Meanwhile, others agreed we should look for a new slot. If you want to
take over the lead, please be so kind as to set up a new poll or come
up with a different solution.

> And there was at least onestatement that I consider hostile.
>
> Don't get me wrong: I'm not keen on becoming chair, but I want people
> to talk *to* me rather than *about* me (or behind my back).
>
> Care to elaborate? No-one talks behind your back.

I think I already explained my view. If somebody wants to nominate me,
I they should talk to me and not about me.

And if somebody (not you!) accuses me of not being interested at all
without ever talking to me, I consider this hostile. And if that
person claims it was not a timing issue, even thought I have clearly
said so on this list over two weeks ago, I wonder who is not
interested.

> Now potty withdrew his election. As there are no minutes on
> meeting-minutes@, I don't know any details about this. Maybe he was
> just trying to unblock the situation, but I think we should start over
> with a new meeting time where all members can attend and a new vote.
>
> It was agreed that I am appointed as the current chair. Subsequently, I have
> appointed potty as vice-chair.

According to the log there were 4 famsco members in the meeting. There
is an unwritten rule that you don't elect yourself but get elected.
You restrain from voting for yourself, that's why in the past, we
always had a quorum of 50% + 1 vote. While this is not an official
guideline whatsoever, this quorum is common sense but was not met.

> I think that this is all resolved now, after so many weeks. Unless of course
> the majority of FAmSCo says otherwise, but that wouldn't make any sense
> because we've just reached a decision.

Pro-tip: Please don't ask people for their views in one sentence and
give your personal opinion in the next. It will influence others.

> I would really love to see you again as an active member of the committee.

And I would love to attend the meetings again, so let's look for a new
meeting time.

> One of my current tasks is to send you and tuanta an e-mail about your
> inactivity and try to re-activate you.

The idea that you could simply re-activate somebody with an email is
based on the misconception that somebody is inactive because he
doesn't care. Please let me assure you this is not the case.

Best regards,
Christoph