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 vote. 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 election. Cheers, Roberto