[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Mawaki Chango]

Anyway, this whole voting exercise has been troubling to me. I thought there
was going to be time to discuss the charter amendment. I remember Avri's
post clarifying the fact that even if 10 have seconded the amendment
proposal, discussion is welcome if not required as long as an issue has been
raised. Jeremy confirmed that of course discussion may continue and that he
was only addressing, in his previous email, the 10-threshold support for the
amendment proposal to move ahead. Then how much time had elapsed since that
day before the voting was open?

Yet parminder raised issue with using the same nomcom for several purposes,
suggesting instead we could use the same pool of volunteers to constitute
several nomcoms if under time constraint. I thought that suggestion was
worth considering and discussing, and said so. I was surprised how fast the
opening of the vote came after that without any further consideration.

I find there're now too many questions about this vote, or bundle of votes,
and that it should be declared void and closed.

Thanks,

Mawaki

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Interesting point.
>
> Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of
> the charter had been met.  Interesting cascade.
>
> And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin
> for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing
> list to mess with the charter.
>
> So we might have both letter and spirit.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote:
>
> > On 9/29/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another, but
> >> the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different
> >> eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other
> >> voting. It states that
> >>
> >>    "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous
> >>    election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."
> >
> > I understand that's the language.  But in order to conclude that
> > someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and
> > unequivocal.  Here, those who voted in the previous election are
> > "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak.  There is no express
> > preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not
> > automatic in nature.
> >
> > Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the
> > letter and spirit of the law.  The letter and the spirit are why I
> > interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put
> > the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in
> > the denial of a voting right.  If a Charter intended for a more
> > restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if
> > well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like
> > "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the
> > purpose of amending the Charter."
> >
> > --
> > Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> > P.O. Box 1
> > Ishpeming, MI  49849
> > lehto.paul at gmail.com
> > 906-204-2334
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100929/9019fac4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t