[ALSC-Forum] Social accountability

[Eric Dierker]

Mr. Roberts;

The depths of your insincerity have finally just dawned on me.  I warn
you that most dotcommoners are not so slow, they simply are too polite
to call you on your bull.

Actions speak louder than words. Everything you say here would ring true
had you and staff and the BoD opted to spend the study money on
fulfilling your words here rather than conducting a study which we all
knew would prevent your suggested remedies.

We all knew about the "problems" before this study.

You are past your time and out of place.  Netizens don't buy sound bites
and platitudes.  We can easily place you in and index and compare your
words of a year ago to your actions today.  We can chart threads and
immediately see your inconsistencies. In an instant we can notice a con
job.

We should be all arguing about the latest scandal in the past voting of
the second AL election and not debating a study to show that users
should be excluded and seats should be reduced.  You funded this study
and you are responsible for the delay in representativeness on the board
- not some flawed old past election.

What really hurts is how you blame our inability in technology for your
faults.  Staff and the BoD has done the same with non-legacy roots.  You
scare my dotcommoners into a belief that technology can not handle these
problems of on-line voting and alternative root structures, in order to
cover up your own inadequacies or improprieties.  Now you hired a bunch
of guns to do the same with this study.  They say that verification of
Identification is the reason for excluding Users of the Internet, then
how does a billion dollars of ecommerce get done everyday.  It is sick
and wrong blaming technology which is fully capable, for your moral
deficits which are fully incapable.

No one should buy technical incompetence as a grounds social fraud.

Sincerely,
Eric



Mike Roberts wrote;

Karl - there is plenty of room for criticism of the 2000 At Large
election cycle, but it should not be directed at Jody Baram, the
project director, who worked incredibly long hours to assist
thousands of people with registration and activation.  Rather it
should be directed to the Board members, including myself, who made
the assumption in Cairo that a well sorted out plan for an indirect
election could be junked and an entirely new direct election plan
adopted and implemented and executed prior to the annual meeting in
November 2000, all without any increase in the exceedingly modest
budget of $200,000 provided by the Markle grant.  In retrospect, it
is surprising that a reputable third party observer, Chuck Costello
of the Carter Center, was able to state afterwards that he thought
the election had been conducted fairly.

I'm sure that my successor, Stuart Lynn, and the rest of the Board
will use the evidence from last year's election, including the many
unanswered questions about how to detect fraud in a worldwide  online
election, in reviewing any plans for the future of At Large.

- Mike