[governance] Transition

carlos a. afonso ca at rits.org.br
Tue May 2 11:05:19 EDT 2006


I agree with Wolf.

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang Kleinw├Ąchter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
To: Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, avri at acm.org,
governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 13:22:11 +0200
Subject: Re: [governance] Transition

> 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


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



More information about the Governance mailing list