Conference 7.286::dcu

	After the petition candidates for the ballot have submitted their
	signatures, we should request that their names be added to this
	tape recording. I don't see how DCU could refuse such a request,
	but if it does, it will demonstrate a clear-cut bias for the
	nominated candidates. I suspect that rather than refusing to add
	the additional names, they will simply stop playing the recording.

	Jim

    re .0  Wow, that's super, cuz I think my "don't-vote-for-these"
    list got misplaced somewhere.

    Am I wrong, or is the notice posted when you get a directory of the
    notesfile -< See note 486 for information on "REAL CHOICES" 
    candidates >- the same as what the DCU is doing by having the nominated
    candidates' names on the recording while calling for DCU information?
    I did not know that this note was endorsing candidates now.
    

	That has bothered me as well. If the conference notice string is
	going to point anywhere, perhaps it should point to the note
	that invites *all* candidates to state (with no word limit) their 
	views....

						Tom_K

    re:5
    
    The DCU has not put the petition candidates on the recording, to my
    knowledge ... but that is not justification to limit the number of
    petition candidates being promoted through this notesfile.  My personal
    information is not highlighted in this manner through what is supposed
    to be an open forum.  I do not want to sound like a negative person,
    but I don't see how we can complain about something the DCU is doing and
    do the same thing ourselves.  There are 11 candidates nominated through
    petition, but the note referenced highlights but 9 of them.  It sounds
    much like what the DCU is doing in their recording.   I believe that
    the membership will make the appropriate choices regardless of the
    promotion of different groups, but we should not complain about actions
    that we are also taking.

re .5:

>	So far they have not chosen to post anything so there is nothing for 
>	the notice to point to.

	Sure there is. There is the information provided by one of the two
	candidates who is neither a "Nominating Committee" candidate, nor
	a "Real Choices" candidate. (BTW: How many people know who the 
	other one is? Answer at the bottom.)


					Tom_K

        Following, is, as best as I can determine, a listing of all of the
        candidates:

Charles Boutcher    (Nominated by Membership Petition)
Tanya Dawkins       (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Christopher Gillett (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Deepak Goyal        (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee)
Phil Gransewicz     (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Abhijit Gupta       (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Gim Hom             (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Paul Kinzelman      (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Richard Luciano     (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Gail Mann           (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee)
Tom McEachin        (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee)
Paul Milbury        (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee)
Claire Muhm         (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee)
Lisa Demauro Ross   (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Rick Sample         (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee)
Ray Schmalz         (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee)
Susan Shapiro       (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee, incumbent)
Alfred Thompson     (Nominated by Membership Petition, "Real Choices" candidate)
Jay Tredwell        (Nominated by Membership Petition)
Abbott Weiss        (Nominated by the DCU Nominating Committee, incumbent)

    
    So let's just change it back to what it used to be, a pointer to 441
    which points to other election related topics, I believe.  I suggest
    sending mail to the moderator to get it addressed quickly.  

    re;7
    
    Thanks Tom.  I appreciate the fact that you went to the trouble to list
    ALL the candidates running regardless of affiliation.  I think everyone
    running deserves, at the very least, that consideration.
                                              

    Agreed.  The note should point to all the candidates who have some
    information in here.  Out of curiosity, why didn't you just send a note
    to the moderator asking him to do that?

    Simple ... becaue I felt that this was a larger issue of "don't do what
    I do, do what I say".  I felt it was very appropriate to enter it here.
    I think that it is somewhat ironic that it is OK to point out flaws in
    process in this note unless it is directed at a specific group.

    
    RE: .11
    
    Well unless you wrote the Moderator and he refused to change it, the
    situations are not similar.  Now if the Moderator said take a hike,
    then you have a legitimate beef.  At least give him a chance to correct
    it.  He has shown a willingness to change and improve.  Personally I
    think your request is valid and he would have taken care of it very
    quickly.
    
    Oh well, let's not make a mountain out of a pointer...
    

    Moderator hat being put on:
    
    I have changed the notice to point at note 441. It was earlier changed
    to point at the "REAL CHOICES" note because I considered that a
    significant posting. If anybody posts a base note that they consider to
    be very topical feel free to ask me to change the notice to temporarily
    point at that note.
    
    I agree that there is no longer any need for the notice to point at the
    "REAL CHOICES" note. If I had been contacted and asked to change it to
    something else I would have been only too happy to have done so.
    But it was brought up here instead. No problem it achieved the same end
    I've changed the notice.
    
    Dave

re: .6

I don't recall anywhere in this notes conference
where it is written that the conference itself is
promoting candidates, or that there is somehow a 
limit to the candidates who may post here. 

Further, posting candidate notices
here does not constitute an endoresement of same, in
the same way that the BoD's old "Witch Hunters" memo
does not constitute a condemnation of the special 
meeting organizers.

I don't see any similarity between a forum which
is write-accessible to all, and a recorded message
at DCU which is read (er, listen) only.

./chris

.14>                       -< I guess I'm slightly confused... >-

Don't be.  Considering how difficult this whole affair has been, and continues
to be, it's surprising there haven't been more mistakes.  (The pointer WAS a
mistake.  Chuck was right.)

The important thing is that in normal human interactions, mistakes can be
corrected.  We usually expect that a candid "oops", plus appropriate positive
action, will let us get on to the real business at hand.

I, for one, believe that this is how ANY of the petition candidates, as well
as any of the campaign volunteers, intend to conduct themselves.

    I wanted to add a positive comment here ... I did send the moderator a
    note about a different issue and it was responded to immediately.  I
    appreciate that type of response and wanted to share that information
    as well.