[governance] Transition

David Goldstein goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au
Tue May 2 08:54:42 EDT 2006


Hi all

As one of the "silent majority" on the list, I do
support the idea of Avri being a coordinator, at least
for the interim period.

Cheers
David

--- Wolfgang Kleinw├Ąchter
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
wrote:

> My understanding from the discussion is that the
> majority of people who have expressed themselves on
> the list openly support Avri to be the only
> coordinator for the transition period. A second one
> would be good, but is not seen as a pre-condition to
> move foreward. If you add the silent majority of the
> list, Avri has a rough consensus to move forward.
>  
> Best regards
>  
> wolfgang
>  
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of
> Milton Mueller
> Sent: Sun 4/30/2006 11:13 PM
> To: avri at acm.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Transition
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 



		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
marie claire: The latest from Mercedes Australia Fashion Week 
http://www.marieclaire.com.au/fashionweek 

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



More information about the Governance mailing list