Hoi, There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However, when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable position is yours. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> > Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > >> Hoi, > >> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to > >> ignore > >> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who > >> decides > >> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on > consensus, > >> this means that it is not only about simple majorities, > >> Thanks, > >> GerardM > >> > > > > I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The > > majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically > > unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions > > but are too shy of their English to express them. > > As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in > practice it can't work. I voted on this nomination without comment. If > my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves > little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage. > > The most important points can often be made with very few words. That > has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are > seldom at a loss for words. > > Ec > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l