[EURO-Discuss] My 2 cents

Roberto Gaetano roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com
Sat Jun 29 12:59:41 UTC 2013

Dear all,

I was hesitant about writing my opinion, but then I thought it was important
to provide a contribution.

I have seen things from the outside: I have not attended the GA, so I cannot
know what happened exactly and how exact the minutes are, and I am not a
voting member, so I am not involved in the choice of the Secretariat.

The first impression you get from the outside is that there has been a lack
of preparation of the event. I am not saying this to point fingers at
anybody: not having contributed at all, I am the last person who can
complain. My point is just "next time we have to do it better".

We seem to need a review of the bylaws. Again, I am not in a position to
complain, I am not a lawyer, I am the last person who can indicate what
needs to be changed, but I am observing that there is at least a lack of
clarity on what the bylaws indicate. I welcome wholeheartedly Manuel's
effort in cleaning up the workspace and the documents: if things need to be
revised, it is already a good start to have a baseline.

On the election, first the good news. I remember the times when we needed to
twist people's arms to accept a position in Euralo: I welcome now the fact
that we cave competing candidates. This is a very good sign of growth of the
organization, and a promising start for the future. However, I wonder
whether this factual change in Euralo (higher interest from participants)
should be matched by a cultural change, a paradigm switch. We need to
transition from an organization in its infancy, who relies on heroes and
personal initiative, to a mature organization, who relies on well-defined
roles, well-written bylaws, well-designed recruitment and appointment
systems. And (but this might be rather the object of another message, about
priorities and mission) a well-defined strategy and plans to achieve the
strategic objectives.

Back to the election, I agree with Wolf when he states "I need to have
confidence in my co-leadership what is the Secretariat at the moment", and
with Werner when he states that according to the bylaws we do not need an
election for the Secretariat. However, we have started a process, and we
need to close it in the best way, without shortcuts at without giving the
impression that we twist the results to suit what we believe would be the
best outcome.

My personal opinion would be that the election be continued with the same
system that had been decided. This means that, since the first round did not
provide a successful outcome, in the sense that no candidate got the
absolute majority, we go to a second round with the same options (A, B or
none) where a relative majority would be sufficient. If the two candidates
get the same number of votes, I see no other option than to go to another

I believe that this course of action, besides being the one that is closer
to a formal interpretation of the rules, will be the one that will leave
least bitter feelings behind.

With all due respect to the candidates, we need to think of a solution that
puts the interest of the organization above the individual expectations, and
that will allow us, whatever the result of the vote, to turn the page and
progress until the next appointment, which I believe will be in London 2014.
We need to use the time between now and London 2014 to build solid bases for
Euralo 2.0, not to argue about what should/would have happened at the last




More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list