Re: IIUG Board Nominations

Because of this e-mail I received: From: iiug.election@gmail.com Subject: Nomination Results. Date: November 20, 2006 1:31:14 PM CST To: christine@myinform-me.com Thank you for your recent interest in running for the International Informix Users Group 2007 board. Unfortunately, due the large number of candidates this year your nomination, and a number of others, has not been successful. Thanks again for your interest, and the IIUG hopes we can count on your support over the coming year. -- Sam Gentsch Former IIUG Board Member IIUG Elections Commissioner 2006 elections@iiug.org On Nov 21, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > Eric Rowell said: >> I think this is a great question and look forward to an answer. >> >> On 21 Nov 2006 10:11:11 -0800, mark.scranton@gmail.com >> <mark.scranton@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Does anyone besides me find it odd that the IIUG board would >>> limit the >>> number of nominees for the board positions? I didn't see anything on >>> the IIUG website about this, so the impression is as long as your >>> name >>> got submitted prior to Nov 15, you had a chance. By limiting the >>> number >>> of nominees, it clearly gives "someone" a chance to "hand-pick" >>> who is >>> running and who isn't. If it was a first-come first-served, that >>> too is >>> odd. Not sure of any elections that are run this way, not to >>> mention, >>> it would again be subjective by "someone" to decide who "got their >>> first." > > I'm not sure why Mark thinks there is a limit on the number of > places...? > > -- > Bye now, > Obnoxio > > "... no bill is required as no value was provided." > -- Christine Normile > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is > believed to be clean. > > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

>> "Christine Normile" <christinenormile@mac.com> wrote in message >> news:mailman.321.1164136003.29126.informix-list@iiug.org... >> Because of this e-mail I received: >> From: iiug.election@gmail.com >> Subject: Nomination Results. >> Date: November 20, 2006 1:31:14 PM CST >> To: christine@myinform-me.com >> Thank you for your recent interest in running for the International >> Informix Users Group 2007 board. Unfortunately, due the large number of >> candidates this year your nomination, and a number of others, has not >> been successful. >> Thanks again for your interest, and the IIUG hopes we can count on your >> support over the coming year. On the face of it, this seems very unfair. Of course, there may be factors we don't know about ... Could someone from the IIUG Board, or maybe Sam, expalin the situation to the wider IIUG membership? Thanks and regards Neil

> -----Original Message----- > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list- > bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Neil Truby > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 6:11 AM > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: IIUG Board Nominations > > >> "Christine Normile" <christinenormile@mac.com> wrote in message > >> news:mailman.321.1164136003.29126.informix-list@iiug.org... > >> Because of this e-mail I received: > > >> From: iiug.election@gmail.com > >> Subject: Nomination Results. > >> Date: November 20, 2006 1:31:14 PM CST > >> To: christine@myinform-me.com > > >> Thank you for your recent interest in running for the International > >> Informix Users Group 2007 board. Unfortunately, due the large number of > >> candidates this year your nomination, and a number of others, has not > >> been successful. > > >> Thanks again for your interest, and the IIUG hopes we can count on your > >> support over the coming year. > > On the face of it, this seems very unfair. Of course, there may be > factors > we don't know about ... > Could someone from the IIUG Board, or maybe Sam, expalin the situation to > the wider IIUG membership? > > Thanks and regards > Neil > Did anyone else get this? I can understand both sides of the issue. Imagine 400 candidates. Assuming that these candidates are viable, that would spread the votes and would allow someone to get a handful of "friends" and rig the election. Its not unusual to have a situation for board members vet the candidates in order to limit the list to a viable number. As someone also pointed out, this is a large commitment. I don't know how many times I've heard Ron F. complain about how his wife is going to kill him 'cause he's always away on business or on an IIUG matter. (Now I know Ron is going to kill me. ;-) Even knowing this, I am running. Having spent two tours, first with Informix, then within Informix/IBM. In between, I ran my own shop and supported Informix customers. I've spent time with the local user group, and now, I've regained my perspective and believe that I can help make the IIUG an effective partner to IBM. I think that the IIUG can make a difference. That's why I think that it is worth the commitment. But hey! What do I know? I'm only running because someone is blackmailing me with photos of me taking blackmail photos of certain IIUG board members, OTC and a goat. Why a goat and not sheep is beyond me. ;-) -G

<msegel@NOSPAM.Sege.l.com> wrote in message news:mailman.337.1164205731.29126.informix-list@iiug.org... > Did anyone else get this? > > I can understand both sides of the issue. > Imagine 400 candidates. Assuming that these candidates are viable, that > would spread the votes and would allow someone to get a handful of > "friends" > and rig the election. > > Its not unusual to have a situation for board members vet the candidates > in > order to limit the list to a viable number. > > As someone also pointed out, this is a large commitment. I don't know if I'm missing the point BIG TIME here, in the style of Obnoxio, but even if 400 people want to stand does the Board have a right to vet those standing? If it does, and such a rejection, unexplained as it appears to have been, is publicly questionned is there not a obligation on behalf of "our" board to issue a explanation for their decision? And on your final point, are the Board members well-placed to judge whether an individial nominee has or has not the time to honour the commitment? Maybe elections in America are run differently. I've never understood why (for instance) Republican supporters don't register as Democrats to ensure that the opposition party gets saddled with the most unelectable candidate possible ...

So to summarize - many have agreed that this method of limiting nominations seems everything from odd to unfair. But notice that we have heard NOTHING from the board on this issue at all. IF the decision to limit nominations has foundation and "makes sense" to the operations of the IIUG, then someone - even the leader - could respond and explain it quickly, and this would be a non-issue. I encourage the community to ask AGAIN for an explanation on this - those of you who care but haven't asked at this point - and see if someone from the board can respond to the members questions. Absence of an answer/explanation should help the Informix community and members of the IIUG see what is happening here. Can someone from the board prove me wrong? I'd be happy IF there was a good explanation - even if IF I was wrong. This isn't about me, and as I've said, it's not personal - it's about the board serving the Informix community. The Informix community have asked a valid question that will affect the board activities. The members deserve an answer. And again - if this approach to limiting board nominees has been discussed and thought through, then the answer should be very short and to the point. Thanks - Mark. Neil Truby wrote: > <msegel@NOSPAM.Sege.l.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.337.1164205731.29126.informix-list@iiug.org... > > > Did anyone else get this? > > > > I can understand both sides of the issue. > > Imagine 400 candidates. Assuming that these candidates are viable, that > > would spread the votes and would allow someone to get a handful of > > "friends" > > and rig the election. > > > > Its not unusual to have a situation for board members vet the candidates > > in > > order to limit the list to a viable number. > > > > As someone also pointed out, this is a large commitment. > > I don't know if I'm missing the point BIG TIME here, in the style of > Obnoxio, but even if 400 people want to stand does the Board have a right to > vet those standing? If it does, and such a rejection, unexplained as it > appears to have been, is publicly questionned is there not a obligation on > behalf of "our" board to issue a explanation for their decision? And on > your final point, are the Board members well-placed to judge whether an > individial nominee has or has not the time to honour the commitment? > > Maybe elections in America are run differently. I've never understood why > (for instance) Republican supporters don't register as Democrats to ensure > that the opposition party gets saddled with the most unelectable candidate > possible ...

mark.scranton@gmail.com said: > So to summarize - many have agreed that this method of limiting > nominations seems everything from odd to unfair. But notice that we > have heard NOTHING from the board on this issue at all. Well, technically, we have, via your raising the issue and Christine's post. But posting on a Usenet newsgroup is not necessarily the right place for someone from the board to respond to an issue which is between you/Christine and the board, just like this is not necessarily the most professional way to raise the issue. Having run a number of user groups in the past, and having experienced the enormous lack of input and gratitude from users, I can't really even think why you or Christine feel anything but grateful that it's not part of your life. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "... no bill is required as no value was provided." -- Christine Normile -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by OpenProtect(http://www.openprotect.com), and is believed to be clean.

My impression of the current board is that they operate like a clan or a gang. The board members themselves create and tailor rules to suit their needs, which in turn empower them so they can achieve their own agenda through control. The nomination process should be fair, democratic and open to all IIUG members. In a democratic process, the people should have a voice and a chance to be part of that process. In summary, the current board has proven to us : if you are not part of the clan and not willing to accept what the gang wants for us, so stay away. ( This board has been perceived that way following past discussions held in this forum recently) I don't see any reasons other than control and manipulation that will lead any board to behave accordingly. jp "mark.scranton@gm ail.com" <mark.scranton@gm To ail.com> informix-list@iiug.org Sent by: cc informix-list-bou nces@iiug.org Subject Re: IIUG Board Nominations - "Where's the Board?" 11/22/2006 10:04 AM So to summarize - many have agreed that this method of limiting nominations seems everything from odd to unfair. But notice that we have heard NOTHING from the board on this issue at all. IF the decision to limit nominations has foundation and "makes sense" to the operations of the IIUG, then someone - even the leader - could respond and explain it quickly, and this would be a non-issue. I encourage the community to ask AGAIN for an explanation on this - those of you who care but haven't asked at this point - and see if someone from the board can respond to the members questions. Absence of an answer/explanation should help the Informix community and members of the IIUG see what is happening here. Can someone from the board prove me wrong? I'd be happy IF there was a good explanation - even if IF I was wrong. This isn't about me, and as I've said, it's not personal - it's about the board serving the Informix community. The Informix community have asked a valid question that will affect the board activities. The members deserve an answer. And again - if this approach to limiting board nominees has been discussed and thought through, then the answer should be very short and to the point. Thanks - Mark. Neil Truby wrote: > <msegel@NOSPAM.Sege.l.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.337.1164205731.29126.informix-list@iiug.org... > > > Did anyone else get this? > > > > I can understand both sides of the issue. > > Imagine 400 candidates. Assuming that these candidates are viable, that > > would spread the votes and would allow someone to get a handful of > > "friends" > > and rig the election. > > > > Its not unusual to have a situation for board members vet the candidates > > in > > order to limit the list to a viable number. > > > > As someone also pointed out, this is a large commitment. > > I don't know if I'm missing the point BIG TIME here, in the style of > Obnoxio, but even if 400 people want to stand does the Board have a right to > vet those standing? If it does, and such a rejection, unexplained as it > appears to have been, is publicly questionned is there not a obligation on > behalf of "our" board to issue a explanation for their decision? And on > your final point, are the Board members well-placed to judge whether an > individial nominee has or has not the time to honour the commitment? > > Maybe elections in America are run differently. I've never understood why > (for instance) Republican supporters don't register as Democrats to ensure > that the opposition party gets saddled with the most unelectable candidate > possible ... _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list

: 22 Nov 2006 15:09:34.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[3800A8F0:01C70E48] > >So to summarize - many have agreed that this method of limiting >nominations seems everything from odd to unfair. But notice that we >have heard NOTHING from the board on this issue at all. [SNIP] Mark, With all due respect, from what I have seen, its been a very vocal minority that is attempting to raise this issue. As I responded to Neil, the board does have an obligation to ensure that the succeeding board is going to be viable. Also, that if you have questions about the vetting process, that you first look to the by-laws. I would be shocked if a sitting board member were to come here and address this issue. It would be inappropriate. And you know this. No offense, but I've tossed my name in to the hat a couple of times and if what you're suggesting were true, then why am I on the list as a candidate? Look, we don't know the facts, but on the surface, this is a non-issue. Why are you such a hater? Can't we all just get along? _________________________________________________________________ Fixing up the home? Live Search can help http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG

"Hater"....too funny! Just a tad bit trendy for my tastes. The only thing I'm hating right now is the goat that "someone" dropped on my back porch. Not sure who, but it has a big round red nose, large shoes, and a silly hat. And he just keeps repeating "Bye now, bye now...". Not to mention, scrawled on him is "JH was here....". I mean - if the beast at least knew Unix, he could write some scripts or something. Pay attention to the posts Michael - I didn't "suggest" anything. One candidate posted the email she rec'd when trying to get on the list of nominees. If you knew any small detail of the history of the last few years, your perspective would be different. But you don't - that is clear. And that's actually a good thing - one more frustrated person doesn't improve the Informix community. And btw - you need to know me much better to say "with all due respect" - those who do know exactly why I feel the way I feel, and would never suggest that it is a "hater" issue. Thanks - Mark. Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > : 22 Nov 2006 15:09:34.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[3800A8F0:01C70E48] > > > >So to summarize - many have agreed that this method of limiting > >nominations seems everything from odd to unfair. But notice that we > >have heard NOTHING from the board on this issue at all. > > [SNIP] > > Mark, > > With all due respect, from what I have seen, its been a very vocal minority > that is attempting to raise this issue. > > As I responded to Neil, the board does have an obligation to ensure that the > succeeding board is going to be viable. > > Also, that if you have questions about the vetting process, that you first > look to the by-laws. > > I would be shocked if a sitting board member were to come here and address > this issue. It would be inappropriate. And you know this. > > No offense, but I've tossed my name in to the hat a couple of times and if > what you're suggesting were true, then why am I on the list as a candidate? > > Look, we don't know the facts, but on the surface, this is a non-issue. > Why are you such a hater? Can't we all just get along? > > _________________________________________________________________ > Fixing up the home? Live Search can help > http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG