[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC Nominating Committee 2008 Appointments

[Roberto Gaetano]

Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 
> Is it staff practice not to itself be transparent -- and to 
> recommend against transparency and accountability in internal 
> procedures -- unless the bylaws absolutely and specifically 
> demand it? Is doing the absolute minimum necessary Standard 
> Operating Procedure?

Although I agree with you on general observations regarding transparency
(having read the traffic on the mailing list about the nominations, I was
surprised myself to see different candidates - but please take also into
account that I only have partial information, as I read only the public
list), I believe that you might be aiming at the wrong target. And maybe, if
we want to solve the problem for the next time, we should spend a little
time and effort in identifying where the problem is.

I cannot avoid to notice that, while staff (namely Nick) is being accused to
be the main source of lack of transparency and accountability for not having
enforced proper rules, I have witnessed in a RALO heavy attacks (even
insulting) exactly because he dared to speak saying that he did not consider
best practice to change the rules of voting while the voting had already
started. The point made was that the RALO was responsible, not staff, of
setting the rules.

And this time, he has done exactly this: he has put on the wiki the names
that have been passed to him by the RALOs and by ALAC. So maybe the solution
to the problem is, when dust has settled down, to define clear and detailed
procedures that define roles and tasks of staff, RALOs, ALAC, ALSes, etc.
But this time, well before the vote, when nobody could be biased, even
inconsciously, by estimation of possible outcomes.

My personal suggestion is that, since the elected people are good people,
and will do an excellent job, the focus be on improvement of the system
rather than looking for the scapegoat.

Regards,
Roberto