Hi, I am not sure whether I am supposed to speak up on these matters since I have no voting right to begin with. In any case, I'd like to say that I really disagree with the approach proposed below. Forming slates might be an ok method when people are in basic agreement or when they at least agree on what they disagree about. This list has shown so much disagreement that, in addition to regional variation, the different opinions should really be represented on the board. I think elections are the best and most democratic way to achieve this goal. jeanette Vittorio Bertola wrote:
All,
as nominations start to come, personally I would try to see whether we can agree on a good mix of people that can make everyone happy and confident in the process.
For what regards the EURALO Board, I would recommend that the people who were most active in the discussions in the last year volunteer to be part of it. I would like to have one person per each macro-region of Europe (Northern, Western, Central, Southern and Eastern) plus, for regions that have been very active such as Germany and Benelux, perhaps one more, so to have a Board of 6-7 members.
Also for ALAC members, I think that a good complement to Annette would be someone from Northern/Western Europe and someone from Eastern Europe, possibly of different gender. Southern Europe has already been well represented in the At Large, so I think that we should pass the turn.
What would you think of this?
Thanks,
P.S. For what regards myself, as I repeatedly said, I do not want to continue as an ALAC member, not because I wouldn't like to continue, but because I think that after four years it's time that new people have a chance to serve. On the other hand, I'd be happy to serve in the EURALO Board if this is considered useful - I have been trying to work for compromise and practical advances on the hot issues such as individual membership and incorporation, and I hope that I could continue to do so and help the process.