Dear John and DASC Colleagues: You have not read all the e-mail traffic on this subject because not all went over the reflector. Some messages were exchanged between the actual DASC officers, the nominated candidates and the returning officer (RO). The first reason was to avoid misunderstanding and triggering any tension. However this might have mislead some of us, and I feel compelled to try to clarify some of that. 1. My initial request to Peter (the RO) was just to continue to do the elections as they were done in the past, and not to change anything, or simplify the process in any way. That means that I did not ask for any change, but the change occurred when no position statement period was provided. 2. Some of you seem to assume that my request was motivated by the desire to be able to change, what some call "the already known and unchangeable result of the election" simply by providing a position statement. While in debating the need to keep the phase of position statement in as it allways has been, could be argued based on the need to be able to provide valuable information to our distinguished voters, there is also another possible reason why the statement providing period was and is necessary. That reason is that if someone wanted to concede the elections and not run, meaning not appear on the ballot, as soon as he/she sees that there are enough "highly motivated and capable" people willing to serve, that person should be entitled to do so. With the first broadcasting of the candidates list at the same time with the call for vote, all candidates are stuck on the ballot, and there is no room left for diplomacy. In other words the election without the position statement period is forced into competition and un-needed tension even if it should not be that way, and it has never been that way. Given all this, the simultaneous release of the candidates names and the call for vote was clearly a mistake, which the RO tried to repair. 3. Finally, some of you seem to imply that I should just send out my position statement, at the end of the voting period, and shut up, because anyway "that will not change anything." In that case something would indeed remain the same, but that would be only the wrong perception that nobody has the right to expect or require that elections be performed according to established procedure. Note also that Victor initial request was a mandated message agreed upon by all the DASC officers and all the nominated candidates, while his withdraw was only based on his own judgement, and maybe triggered by what humorously (emphasized HUMOROUSLY) some of us like (emphasized LAUGHING) to call the *ultra right wing* inferences. A note to my dear competitors, Kathy and Stan. First, thank you both for offering to serve. You both well deserve to have the opportunity to become a DASC Vice-Chair, both have occupied higher ranked positions in the past, and am sure that anyone would do a good, even a great job. I am not sure that you would fight for DASC the same way I did, and I am not sure that your views will be pure and individual or company based. That's why I even thought that maybe the two of you could occupy two DASC Vice-Chairs positions, if another one would be created. While other avenues to influence the standards process may exist, I still support the idea that election process has to be performed according to established procedure, not simplified due to lack of time, or any other reason, and not disturbed by any "black-out" period. Thank you all who are reading this thread, and reply. Sincerely, Alex Zamfirescu On 12/17/07, John Shields <John_Shields@mentor.com> wrote: > > Bill, > > I am truly surprised by your remarks and Alex's. Everyone has made an > attempt to satisfy Alex's desire to have position statements, without being > rash about attempting to change the P&Ps concerning election in the middle > of an election. I note that everyone up for nomination *except Alex* has > put forth a sincere position statement. For him to have time to playfully > chastise Peter and tacitly criticize the Chair for asking for the election > to be continued according to the rules and still not respond with any > comment about providing his own position statement IS HIS POSITION > STATEMENT, as far as I am concerned. > > Your opinion that it was OK for Peter to act as he did is a fine opinion. > When it is prudent to break the rules, they should be broken and it is no > big deal who gets elected, right? > > The "ultra right wing terrorist in our midst" name calling seems out of > character for you though. > > Regards, John > > Hanna, William A wrote: > > DASC Team: > > I do not see the big deal about delaying the DASC election to after the > Holidays. Dr. Ashenden was right in making the early decision, he was also > wise in rescending it *because of the ultra right wing?* that is in our > group with a single mind of torturing us with legalize not appropriate for > an all volunteers engineering standards body. You wonder if we are running > the UN's Wold Court here? > > People lighten up. Take it easy - extending election time is not likely to > change the outcome of this election and even if it does, it is not a big > deal. > > > Happy Holidays, Cheers, > > > *William A. (Bill) Hanna; Ph.D.EE <http://ph.d.ee/> * > *Technical Fellow - Electronics Design* * & Analysis * > Boeing-IDS Programs Phone: (314) > 232-0714 > MC S106-9075 Mobile: (314) > 302-8039 > St. Louis, MO 63166-0516 E-Mail: william.a.hanna@boeing.com > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Alex Zamfirescu [mailto:alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com<alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com>] > > *Sent: *Monday, December 17, 2007 9:04 AM > *To:* Peter Ashenden > *Cc:* stds-dasc@server.dasc.org > *Subject:* Re: DASC officer election resumption > > > Dear Peter: > > You were not someone who would allow himself to be > influenced unduly or who would have had a knee-jerk > reaction to a problem. We all know that good Returning > Officers never disappoint in that regard. > Therefore, I have to share here my surprise for > seeing how easy you overruled your own previous decision, > but I may understand that this is all you can do, in case > the only other alternative was to recuse yourself. > > Sincerely, > > Alex Zamfirescu > > > On 12/16/07, Peter Ashenden <peter@ashenden.com.au > wrote: > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > It would appear that I acted precipitously in suspending the election > > for > > DASC officers. This message is to resume the election process according > > to > > the original timetable, namely, the ballot closing 5:00pm US-PST, > > Tuesday 18 > > December. If you have not already voted, please do so by then. If you > > wish > > to revise a previous vote, I will count the last received by the > > deadline. > > > > Thanks for your patience, and best regards, > > > > PA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Nominations for Chair and Vice Chair for the IEEE DASC have now closed. > > The > > nominees are: > > > > Chair: Victor Berman > > Vice Chair: Stan Krolikoski, Kathy Werner, and Alex Zamfirescu > > > > Under IEEE election procedures, we still need to have an election for > > each > > position, as there is the option of voters writing in candidate names. > > So I > > now invite members of the DASC to vote. Those members who have > > participated > > in 3 of the last 4 DASC meetings/ballots are eligible to have their > > votes > > counted. Other members should still vote or send a formal abstention, > > since > > this ballot will be counted for the 3-of-last-4 rule. > > > > As specified in the DASC procedures: > > > > Voting shall be by "approval", whereby each balloter may cast an > > approval > > vote for each of any number of nominees for an office. The Returning > > Officer > > shall acknowledge receipt of electronic ballots in a timely fashion. The > > nominee with the greatest number of approval votes shall win the > > election. > > Write-in candidates are permitted as specified in the IEEE Bylaws. > > > > Would WG members please vote by completing the form below and returning > > to > > me by reply email by 5:00pm US-PST, Tuesday 18 December. > > > > Thanks, and regards, > > > > Peter Ashenden > > > > -- > > > > Chair (place X next to name to indicate approval vote): > > > > ____ Victor Berman > > > > ____ Write-in: ___________________ > > > > > > Vice-Chair (place X next to name to indicate approval vote): > > > > ____ Stan Krolikoski > > > > ____ Kathy Werner > > > > ____ Alex Zamfirescu > > > > ____ Write-in: ___________________ > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au > > Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au > > PO Box 640 VoIP: > > sip://0871270078@sip.internode.on.net > > Stirling, SA 5152 Phone: +61 8 7127 0078 > > Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106 > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > > > -- > Alex Zamfirescu > 650-814-7514 > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com > http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com > ========= > This communication, and its attachments, may contain > privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific > individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or > shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that > any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or > the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have > received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply > e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission > and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. > Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. > ========= > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/> > *, and is > believed to be clean. > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean. * > > -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com ========= This communication, and its attachments, may contain privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ========= -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Dec 17 13:26:27 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 17 2007 - 13:26:35 PST