IIUG Board of Directors 2006

Anyone know when the results for the IIUG Board of Directors election will
be announced? On the IIUG site it says:

"2006 IIUG Board of Directors Election Results. The election of the 2006
IIUG Board Members concluded on 9 December 2005. The results will be posted
here shortly".

Bloody hell, that's nearly a month! Has Stuart not had time to make up the
results yet? ;-)

(Actually I already know the results. They were posted on the site for a
day or two before being mysteriously removed. It's all very curious. Could
someone from the IIUG Board explain what's going on?).

Try http://www.iiug.org/iiug/board.html

Captain Pedantic wrote:

> Anyone know when the results for the IIUG Board of Directors election will
> be announced? On the IIUG site it says:
>
> "2006 IIUG Board of Directors Election Results. The election of the 2006
> IIUG Board Members concluded on 9 December 2005. The results will be posted
> here shortly".
>
> Bloody hell, that's nearly a month! Has Stuart not had time to make up the
> results yet? ;-)
>
> (Actually I already know the results. They were posted on the site for a
> day or two before being mysteriously removed. It's all very curious. Could
> someone from the IIUG Board explain what's going on?).
>


>

"Paul Watson" <paul@oninit.com> wrote in message
news:L6KdnbN0GpJhOFzeRVnyhg@pipex.net...
> Try http://www.iiug.org/iiug/board.html

Thanks. Can you navigate there from the home page: ie without already
knowing the URL? I couldn't!
(And Congratulations by the way!).

Captain Pedantic wrote:
>
> Bloody hell, that's nearly a month! Has Stuart not had time to make up the
> results yet? ;-)
>
Give the man a kewpie doll! You must know Stuart Lie-Tell very well!

Nimue

But Paul, this does not reflect the actual results of the election, no?
Is the membership at large not entitled to see what machinations the
2005 board has gone thru to subvert the desires of the membership?

Perhaps not. The membership has yet to get vocal regarding the boards
disregard of the organization charter and by-laws. So perhaps, they
are not really interested in whether the IIUG represents the community
or simply a few egotists.

Nimue

Nimue said:
>
> But Paul, this does not reflect the actual results of the election, no?
> Is the membership at large not entitled to see what machinations the
> 2005 board has gone thru to subvert the desires of the membership?
>
> Perhaps not. The membership has yet to get vocal regarding the boards
> disregard of the organization charter and by-laws. So perhaps, they
> are not really interested in whether the IIUG represents the community
> or simply a few egotists.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41...leupthread.gif

--
Bye now,
Obnoxio

"C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien à dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule"
- Coluche

did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all
columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this
has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record
and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent
table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila,
relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit
controversial among modellers.

--r937, dbforums.com

Nimue wrote:

> But Paul, this does not reflect the actual results of the election, no?
> Is the membership at large not entitled to see what machinations the
> 2005 board has gone thru to subvert the desires of the membership?
>
> Perhaps not. The membership has yet to get vocal regarding the boards
> disregard of the organization charter and by-laws. So perhaps, they
> are not really interested in whether the IIUG represents the community
> or simply a few egotists.
>
> Nimue
>

Nobody has asked for this information, so it is NOT the case that it is
hidden, merely a lack of interest.

Subvert, I know what it means, but I have no idea what you mean though.

Who is not interested? The membership or the board? Ever met a board
that didn't have egos on it?



Paul Watson
Oninit Ltd
Tel : +44 1414161772
Cell : +44 7818 003457
Web : www.oninit.com

Hallo Jean George -

There are sins of commission and sins of ommission, no? The original
list of the elected 2006 Board that was sent out is different than what
is posted.

Why? Policies are fine. But this is a user group, with a charter and
by-laws. Which by-law permits disregarding the vote of the membership?
Not that the board has much regard for the by-laws, no? Where was the
committee to review and ADVISE the membership on the candidates? Why
has the board not called a Leadership Council in 2 years?

Paul suggest the election information is simply not published because
no one has expressed interest.

I am interested. How many votes did each candidate receive?

Maybe we need a "do-over"

Nimue

"Nimue" <nimue.Dame_du_Lac@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136857789.422054.214180@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hallo Jean George -
>
> There are sins of commission and sins of ommission, no? The original
> list of the elected 2006 Board that was sent out is different than what
> is posted.


That's right! (well, it should be "different from", but...). I hadn't
noticed before. But Mark Scranton was on the list of "winners" originally
published. Now he isn't. What *is* going on?!

Carolyn Woods was at the Atlanta Worldwide conference and asked Lester
Knuthem(?) if
I could get involved in the Leadership Council since I missed the
election somehow.

I have heard nothing back.