Re: [activities] Nomination: Michael Chesterton

> James Dumay wrote:
>> I really had no idea of the incident. I withdraw my nomination.
>
> That is probably the whole point. Dirty politics has made the slug
> elections.

Call it what you will. I prefer the equally emotive alternative
description of 'common decency'.

> 1) We have a vague comment made by someone who, as far as I know, is a
> nobody. Note, I haven't been to a slug event in over  a decade, so other
> people can point out any ongoing role I may not know about, but that
> really isn't the point.

He's not really a nobody. I'm actually more aware of him than I am of you.

For those who are unaware, he assisted SLUG with running the Linux
Australia stand at the Education Expo last year, and is a regular
contributor to SLUGlets, a participant of last year's google
highschool-age version of the summer of code (forgot the name), and an
OLPC Friend.

He is also a minor, and witnessed the action. Despite his youth, he is
mature enough to knew full well that it was obscenely wrong, but not
necessarily the best way to deal with it.

> 2) Even when asked to provide details, they fail to provide full,
> correct details

He also decided (on my advice) to respect that #slug is a
non-publicly-logged channel, and that channel logs of a known
non-publicly-logged channel should ideally be published with permission.

> 3) Unwisely someone else also provide vague comments that do no really
> clarrify the situation at all.

I also decided to respect any possible privacy concerns.

> 4) We still do not know which IRC list it was on, when it occurred,
> context, etc, etc, etc

I am only aware of one slug IRC channel. #slug on freenode.

> 5) No one has shown that it is relevant to the election. AFAIK, the only
> capacity the committee has to refuse the nomination is if the nominees
> and person nominated are not current slug members.

The relevance was highlighted by you in your response at number 9.

I believe that there is sufficient time between now and the AGM to enact
any process of removing a member, if that member is actually a currently
paid-up member for 2009.

> 6) If people does not think someone is suitable, it makes more sense to
> nominate someone else and promote their case.

Possibly so.

But at the same time, the absence of opposition to someone's general
behaviour representing an organisation, is actually positive reinforcement
of that behaviour, and sets the precedence for the same to happen in the
future.

> 7) Diversity is the lifeblod of a nation and organisations.

Yes, indeed.

I wish there was more than two or so other women in a group of 30+. That
would be a pleasant diversity to have at SLUG meetings.

The prospect of sexist behaviour is not conducive to that happening.

> 8) If this was a work matter, the management would be totally done over.
> If you have a complaint made against you, AUSTRALIAN law requires full,
> clear detais of any incident to be provided.

The matter was actually dealt with at the time. There was no need for an
inquiry.

> 9) SLUG is an AUSTRALIAN organisation, subject to NSW and AUSTRALAN law.

Indeed. Thank you for clarifying that.

> 10) We are not subject to the seven naughty words of the hypocritic USA,
> which is a morally, ethically and now financially bankrupt country.

We are however subject to Australian Law, and the last time I checked,
touching fronts or rears without permission was subject to at least one
piece of legislation.

> 11) I've been, briefly, on some IRC lists where fanny, if that was the
> word, patting is the normal way of being friendly. See 4.

I've also seen spam, porn and death threats on IRC channels and mailing
lists. That doesn't make it correct behaviour.

> 12) Making another guess, like bastard, prick in this country can be any
> thing from an insult to congratulations. Perhaps some people eed to get
> out more into the real world.

As students, sysadmins, developers, etc, are we not already there?

You may want to provide full clarification of your notion that we are in a
fake world -- I'd really appreciate knowing if I was the subject of
something like Ed TV (?).

> 13) My 2c, from over three decades of being involved (all levels)  in
> may community organisations is, that unless someone is an axe murder, I
> really could care less. If they get off their  arse, another acceptable
> AUSTRALIAN word, and do stuff, then you need them involved.

The word's acceptability is not in question. However, The notion of
patting someone on the bum or crotch is the issue.

> Once you start discouraging people from being involved at what ever
> level because they might offend someone, you start killing the
> organisation.

Does this include the people who might have been discouraged by the
behaviour in question?

Or, does other people being offended offend you?

-- 
SLUG Activities
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html