Translated material
Elections, elections ...
Dear editors !
Despite all the fears of our very progressive public, which considered the Law on RAS last year as the machinations of a bloody gabny, intentionally destroying academic freedom and planting a power vertical in science, Fano behaves as a completely democratic organization, ready to listen to the opinion of the workers.
Moreover, representatives of Fano are not limited to departments to places and consideration of complaints and proposals from researchers, but introduce innovative methods of accounting for the opinions of subordinates. We all have long been accustomed to various forms of voting using modern technologies. You can fill out the form on the site or even just put a checkmark there next to the right name, you can send an SMS message, you can express your opinion by e-mail. It is long to make such progressive forms to an educated scientific community to be more likely to introduce. In the end, if some Miss Uryupinsk is already chosen voting on the Internet, then why do scientists weave in the tail of events?
Since Fano officials are much more progressive than the mossy bureaucracy of the Academy of Sciences, it is not so surprising that they began to introduce new forms of electronic democracy, which allows you to attract the widest layers of scientific masses to the process of managerial decisions. Moreover, decisions are not any, but in the most direct way of these masses regarding.
Guided by such good intentions, Fano decided-in order to study public opinion-to conduct an “interactive vote of representatives of the Russian scientific sector for candidates for the commission to assess the effectiveness of scientific organizations subordinate to the federal agency of scientific organizations performing research, development and technological work of civil purposes.” The most important commission: the fate of the institutions will directly depend on its decision - who will be intensively supported, and whom - to disband or reorganize.
Hundreds of candidates were nominated by organizations, from which two lists were formed: from subordinate fan organizations and from other scientific organizations. From November 10 to 16, anyone could vote for one of the candidates, thus proposing this person to include in the commission. Is it possible to more likely show your desire to listen to the opinion of the people?
Do I have to be surprised, my dear colleagues, that the broad masses of researchers, whose opinion about the composition of different commissions during the dominance of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, was never interested in, answered this good idea of the most black ingratitude? The vast majority did not even bother to go to the Fano website and learn about the fact of a public opinion poll.
Those who learned were bursting out for the most part with abuse and screams. Poor farce! Mockery! Rave! More specific claims were also expressed in many. Why can you vote for just one candidate, why can not vote for candidates from your field of science on two lists?! Why can anyone, a person from the street?! Why can one person be burned under several surnames several times using different email addresses?! Why did the interim voting results report, indicating only two specific surnames, is this an attempt to influence the results?!
Reading these claims, I laughed. Dear colleagues, you are contradicting yourself! Since you want to vote for candidates from different lists, and vote using different addresses. At least for ten. Again, you do not need to break away from the people: why does an ordinary housewife, if she is of interest in science, cannot take part in the process? He will look at some impressive gentleman among the candidates, it will be solid at meetings of the commission to look. Certainly better than some shabby redbing.
In vain, in general, colleagues, swear. Elections, elections ... The main thing is that all candidates are worthy people, and the organizers are even more so!
Your Ivan Ekonomov