Re: IIUG Board Nominations
Not a technical thread: it's a dispute over IIUG board elections. A would-be candidate received an email saying her nomination was rejected "due to the large number of candidates," and Mark Scranton questioned why the board would cap nominations at all (no published selection procedure beyond the Nov 15 deadline), framing it as ongoing political control of the board. Obnoxio The Clown initially misread it as a vote-count issue, suggested raising it with the IIUG directly, and the exchange ends in jokes with no resolution or official explanation recorded.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Christine Normile said: > 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. At the risk of appearing pedantic, this does not really say that there is a limit on places. It may just be that because there were a large number of candidates that you just didn't get enough votes or whatever. To be honest, I don't really care enough to find out about the mechanics or rules of the election -- running a UG is a shit job, and they can have it. -- 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.
Uh....OTC....nobody has voted yet. This, as my email stated very clearly (maybe I'll use HEX next time? or perhaps byte-swapped octal?) was wanting to know why the board would limit the NOMINATIONS. Thanks - Mark. Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Christine Normile said: > > 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. > > At the risk of appearing pedantic, this does not really say that there is > a limit on places. It may just be that because there were a large number > of candidates that you just didn't get enough votes or whatever. > > To be honest, I don't really care enough to find out about the mechanics > or rules of the election -- running a UG is a shit job, and they can have > it. > > -- > 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.
mark.scranton@gmail.com said: > Uh....OTC....nobody has voted yet. This, as my email stated very > clearly (maybe I'll use HEX next time? or perhaps byte-swapped octal?) > was wanting to know why the board would limit the NOMINATIONS. As you can see, I'm following this one very closely. :o) Maybe you should take it up directly with the IIUG? I mean, posting on c.d.i doesn't do anything except make it public that you have a grievance about something. We certainly can't answer that question, and as for me, I've been answering the wrong one all along. :o) -- 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.
I too considered the issue of "400 people getting votes", but that doesn't matter since there is not a published procedure for who gets to run with respect to when they got their nomination in to the board. So therefore, the only deadline is Nov 15th. And to be concerned about 400 people getting a vote or two - that's speculation now (since it hasn't happened), and has not been an issue in the past. I want the Informix community to see that this is a continuation of "controlling the board" - as it has been for a long time now. There are many that agree with me on this, but as always, I'm the lone ranger who is speaking out. This isn't personal, although I know many think so. I just hate to see politics take over what should be a very effective, useful, and valuable board for the Informix community. Those who know me know that's always been my focus. I am one of many who have fought this battle over the last few years, only to end up tired of dealing with it. Ask the past IBM liasons, board members that didn't come back, and one or two that I know are not running again this year. I would encourage them to be very clear and honest on why they left the board. If not, again, I'm the only one speaking up. But as always, my statement are easy ...because they are true and supported with fact. Thanks - Mark. Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > mark.scranton@gmail.com said: > > Uh....OTC....nobody has voted yet. This, as my email stated very > > clearly (maybe I'll use HEX next time? or perhaps byte-swapped octal?) > > was wanting to know why the board would limit the NOMINATIONS. > > As you can see, I'm following this one very closely. :o) > > Maybe you should take it up directly with the IIUG? I mean, posting on > c.d.i doesn't do anything except make it public that you have a grievance > about something. We certainly can't answer that question, and as for me, > I've been answering the wrong one all along. :o) > > -- > 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.
mark.scranton@gmail.com said: > I too considered the issue of "400 people getting votes", but that > doesn't matter since there is not a published procedure for who gets to > run with respect to when they got their nomination in to the board. So > therefore, the only deadline is Nov 15th. And to be concerned about 400 > people getting a vote or two - that's speculation now (since it hasn't > happened), and has not been an issue in the past. Like I said, I was answering the wrong question. :o) > I want the Informix community to see that this is a continuation of > "controlling the board" - as it has been for a long time now. There are > many that agree with me on this, but as always, I'm the lone ranger who > is speaking out. This isn't personal, although I know many think so. I > just hate to see politics take over what should be a very effective, > useful, and valuable board for the Informix community. Those who know > me know that's always been my focus. I am one of many who have fought > this battle over the last few years, only to end up tired of dealing > with it. Ask the past IBM liasons, board members that didn't come back, > and one or two that I know are not running again this year. I would > encourage them to be very clear and honest on why they left the board. > If not, again, I'm the only one speaking up. But as always, my > statement are easy ...because they are true and supported with fact. I'm getting from this that you seem to think the current board are a bunch of lickspittles who just go along with whatever Stuart decrees. Anyone who doesn't toe the line, just gets the boot. And the sole objective of the board as currently constituted is some nefarious and obscure political game. Is that what you're saying? Because if that IS what you're saying, perhaps you should be happy for your friend that they're not getting into such an unpleasant situation...? -- 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.
I have to admit....clown, you made me laugh! (That's after I found the dictionary to look up "nefarious" ...sounds like a fungus). As far as the other comments....I'll take the "politically correct" stance - no comment. Which I assume most can infer (where's that dictionary!) my thoughts on your comments (that is my comment). Any comments? Mark. Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > mark.scranton@gmail.com said: > > I too considered the issue of "400 people getting votes", but that > > doesn't matter since there is not a published procedure for who gets to > > run with respect to when they got their nomination in to the board. So > > therefore, the only deadline is Nov 15th. And to be concerned about 400 > > people getting a vote or two - that's speculation now (since it hasn't > > happened), and has not been an issue in the past. > > Like I said, I was answering the wrong question. :o) > > > I want the Informix community to see that this is a continuation of > > "controlling the board" - as it has been for a long time now. There are > > many that agree with me on this, but as always, I'm the lone ranger who > > is speaking out. This isn't personal, although I know many think so. I > > just hate to see politics take over what should be a very effective, > > useful, and valuable board for the Informix community. Those who know > > me know that's always been my focus. I am one of many who have fought > > this battle over the last few years, only to end up tired of dealing > > with it. Ask the past IBM liasons, board members that didn't come back, > > and one or two that I know are not running again this year. I would > > encourage them to be very clear and honest on why they left the board. > > If not, again, I'm the only one speaking up. But as always, my > > statement are easy ...because they are true and supported with fact. > > I'm getting from this that you seem to think the current board are a bunch > of lickspittles who just go along with whatever Stuart decrees. Anyone who > doesn't toe the line, just gets the boot. And the sole objective of the > board as currently constituted is some nefarious and obscure political > game. Is that what you're saying? > > Because if that IS what you're saying, perhaps you should be happy for > your friend that they're not getting into such an unpleasant situation...? > > -- > 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.
mark.scranton@gmail.com said: > I have to admit....clown, you made me laugh! (That's after I found the > dictionary to look up "nefarious" ...sounds like a fungus). > > As far as the other comments....I'll take the "politically correct" > stance - no comment. Which I assume most can infer (where's that > dictionary!) my thoughts on your comments (that is my comment). Any > comments? Have you tried UPDATE STATISTICS? -- 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.