<html>
<body>
Olivier,<br><br>
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you
highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if
all were intentional?<br><br>
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted
in red)<br>
b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good
decsision"<br>
c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red)<br>
c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.<br><br>
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed
to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since
it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs
fixing.<br>
b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much
either<br>
c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey
just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be
added back, not just is willing to live with it.<br>
d) good catch.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Dear Seun, Alan,<br><br>
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was
that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve
especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that
now, but the RoP is to be future proof)</blockquote>
<dd>The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three
RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of
people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on
this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If
we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations
carefully, why do we bother with the process at all? <br><br>
</dl><br>
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that
recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests
all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
</blockquote><br>
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there
is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1.<br>
May I suggest:<br>
19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs
have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs
believe that the BCEC <font color="#FF0000">did not make a good decision
</font>in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for
consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those
RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they
have a similar interest in the additional
candidate<font color="#FF0000">(s)</font>.<br><br>
Best,<br><br>
Olivier</blockquote></body>
</html>