I can live with it with or without the change (although I would keep the "normally" I added. The change only allows the Chair to bypass the process of trying to reach consensus... At 08/08/2013 01:16 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Actually, in almost all of these cases there were multiple people considering the positions. In the conversation leading to consensus, some dropped out to enable a single consensus candidate.
Where no such consensus was possible between the people considering running and other NARALO members, there was a secret vote.
I still don't think this point needs changing. Secret votes still happen, but the region is enabled (and indeed is encouraged) to use consensus where possible.
On 8 August 2013 10:40, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Evan, were there ever cases where there were more candidates than slots and consensus was used? Alan
At 08/08/2013 04:34 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 6 August 2013 10:15, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: At 06/08/2013 08:31 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
#12 refers to ALAC members being chosen by a rough consensus process. This has never been done. It has always been done by a voting process. The rough consensus wording should rather be used for routine decisions.
I am happy to make such a change if there is such a will.
I wouldn't say never.
NARALO's first two non-ALAC reps -- Robert and Beau - were chosen by consensus, no vote was ever taken. I believe that Gareth's selection as well as my first, were also done that way.
I would prefer to keep the option so to allow for the flexibility.
- Evan
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56