Admins-
There you go. One member who was on the ballot along with several other members are in favor of full disclosure.
If you are still concerned with embarrassment, why not give nominees the right to opt-out of having their results made public. If anyone opts-out by a certain date then you can simply withhold their results while releasing the rest.
Thanks
Mac
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" wrote:
>
> Speaking as a nominee who anticipated no actual votes, the nomination, in itself, was more than sufficient ego gratification.
>
> Given the caliber and strength of the rest of the slate, I'm hard pressed to imagine anyone would feel slighted should they have garnered few votes, the votes having instead been cast in favor of some of the greater luminaries on the list.
>
> The strength of any democracy comes, in part, from open disclosure. If some participants in the vote seek an accounting, I don't see any harm in providing it, the privilege of administrative discretion notwithstanding.
>
> - H.
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Luke Fuller wrote:
> >
> > Austin Kelly wrote, "I don't think releasing the full results would be
> > "embarrassing" to nominees who received few votes."
> >
> > I agree.
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (15) |
