[governance] Transition

[Milton Mueller]

Problem with your response, Avri, is that there was as much or more support for a single coordinator than there was for 2 co-coordinators, as far as I could tell. Frankly I won't support another co-coordinator proposal, if it means that 2 coordinators are simply plucked from the air without a process and without the establishment of a charter and some formalization of the grounds for participation, as was proposed. We can't keep ducking that problem.

The virtue of your single coord. proposal was not that it was a single person, but that it was a purely transitional strategy that put a single, proven, trustworthy, accountable person in place to accomplish a transition so that we can have a real process down the road. If what you are saying is that you will do the same thing, but add another name to the "accountable person" category then I might accept it. 

But I don't think the problem people had was with the single coordinator. I think there were all kinds of other little dramas being acted out, which I could not attempt to describe without getting myself and the caucus into hot water, and besides it doesn't matter. 

Looking forward, rather than backwards or sideways as so many seem prone to do, would you please re-iterate the basic elements of your proposal in a bulleted list and show how the selection of 2 rather than one Avris would or would not affect the substance of the proposal.

--MM

>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 4/30/2006 1:05 PM >>>
Hi,

First I want to indicate how grateful i am for the conversations that  
have been going on for last weeks on this list.  I especially  
appreciate the statements of support that I got from so many of you.

However, i do not feel that we have consensus on my proposal despite  
the degree of support.  The strongest issue, in email i received  
privately as well as on the list, seems to be a discomfort with the  
idea of one coordinator.  and since I believe that this can't work  
without consensus, i do not feel i can go forward as a single  
coordinator.

If, however, we are going to have 2 coordinator (we could have more,  
but 2 seems to be what people are calling for) i believe, as a member  
of the caucus, that they should represent, to some extent the  
diversity in the group as much as possible when talking about 2  
people.  There had been suggestions of Bill and I.  I was against  
that and still am.  I think Bill would make a fine coordinator, as i  
believe i might.  But we are both from the US and while he spends  
more time residing in Europe then I do, I beleive we both tend to  
view the world through the eyes of USians with Eurocentric lenses  
(however much we may sometime disagree on other things and i do hope  
he forgives me for characterizing his viewpoint).  If the IGC wants  
two coordinators and wants diversity (gender as well as developing/ 
developed world - or any other criteria someone may suggest)  then i  
see us as possible candidates who could not be chosen to serve together.

so again, i appreciate the consideration my suggestion got, and  
appreciate the great discussions it seemed to initiate, but i do not  
feel that i have the consensus i need to put it into effect and  
therefore suggest that we begin to figure out what it is we want to do.

anyone have a idea?

thanks
a.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance