[NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO Operating Procedures
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Aug 8 20:03:27 UTC 2013
I can live with it with or without the change (although I would keep
the "normally" I added. The change only allows the Chair to bypass
the process of trying to reach consensus...
At 08/08/2013 01:16 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>Actually, in almost all of these cases there were multiple people
>considering the positions. In the conversation leading to consensus,
>some dropped out to enable a single consensus candidate.
>Where no such consensus was possible between the people considering
>running and other NARALO members, there was a secret vote.
>I still don't think this point needs changing. Secret votes still
>happen, but the region is enabled (and indeed is encouraged) to use
>consensus where possible.
>On 8 August 2013 10:40, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Evan, were there ever cases where there were more candidates than
>slots and consensus was used? Alan
>At 08/08/2013 04:34 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>On 6 August 2013 10:15, Alan Greenberg
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>At 06/08/2013 08:31 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
>>#12 refers to ALAC members being chosen by a rough consensus
>>process. This has never been done. It has always been done by a
>>voting process. The rough consensus wording should rather be used
>>for routine decisions.
>>I am happy to make such a change if there is such a will.
>>I wouldn't say never.
>>NARALO's first two non-ALAC reps -- Robert and Beau - were chosen
>>by consensus, no vote was ever taken. I believe that Gareth's
>>selection as well as my first, were also done that way.
>>I would prefer to keep the option so to allow for the flexibility.
>Em: evan at telly dot org
More information about the NA-Discuss