🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1074@mtxinu.UUCP> shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) writes:
> Actually, what bothers me about all this is that the nominations
> that come out of the committee are largely irrelevant, given that it
> is trivial to petition to be on the ballot (*5* signatures?!) and 
> that in the past nominations from the committee and nominations
> through petition haven't been distinguished on the ballot.

There are two ways to interpret this.  One way bothers me.

1- It's easy to get on the ballot anyway, why should someone who was
reject by the nominating committee care?

2- It's easy to get on the ballot anyway, why should the nominating
committee be so rude as to reject qualified candidates?

If it only takes 5 signatures to get on the ballot and
committee-nominated candidates are not distinguished from other
candidates on the ballot, then practically, the nominating committee
only serves to ensure that no slots are overlooked, though more
covertly, it serves to screen or endorse candidates.  (Btw, I think
it's good that it's easy to get on the ballot.)

I would think that the function of a nominating committee would be to
ensure that a slate of qualified candiates exists.  I can't understand
why a nominating committee would take the responsibility to reject
qualified candidates.  If this is their role, the committee should be
called the candidate screening committee, the voting committee, or
perhaps the electoral college.

I suggest that USENIX address the question "what is the function of the
nominating committee," and that they ensure that they are not insulting
qualified volunteers in their nominating process - is it really that
easy for USENIX to find qualified volunteers, that they can insult
candidates?

	Andrew Tannenbaum   Interactive   Cambridge, MA   +1 617 661 7474