On 1 November 2010 17:05, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
I have only received emails supporting Avry. I have not seen the opposing ones.
Evan: Can you generalize the reasons why some are against it?
Some are opposed to a specific petition (for Avri). Others are against having a petition at all (ie, the BCEC did its job and we trust its people that did what they were asked to do). The implication is that, since the BCEC _could_ have put more than three candidates on the ballot, it must have had sufficient reason to limit the final cut to the three that it did. That's as much of a generalization as I feel comfortable doing. As for the reasons why these comments were made privately, I can only speculate that it's because we're talking about people rather than policies ... and some NARALO members commenting may believe that they could be treated differently by their peers for speaking their opinions honestly. It's not for me to judge if those beliefs are warranted. Those people have, for certain, read the calls here for open debate. It is their call how they choose to proceed. I am simply noting the fact that, unusually for NARALO, we have a significant divide. I myself am genuinely undecided. I like Avri personally and professionally, I work with her on committees and greatly appreciate what she brings to end-user advocacy. I also trust the judgments of the people on the BCEC, including NARALO's two representatives. I know they had a very difficult task, and I am confident that a suitable advocate for Internet end-users can be elected from amongst the three people that the BCEC *did* submit. At this point I am more concerned about the campaign becoming a Jerry Springer episode on a global stage than I am about sending an unqualified person to the position. Right now the only thing of which I am certain is that I am thoroughly exhausted by this whole process, long before the vote takes place. - Evan