[governance] Transition

[Lee McKnight]

I agree re rough consensus on Avri as sole coordinator for the interim, can we back-date her wages and say as of May 1st?  Well I said it, enough already! 

Avri please coordinate us : )

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Jeremy Shtern <jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca> 5/2/2006 11:05 AM >>>
I also echo the more detailed comments posted by Wolfgang.

Thanks again to Avri and to everyone for putting in the time on this.

Cheers,

Jeremy Shtern


carlos a. afonso wrote:
> I agree with Wolf.
>
> --c.a.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <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 
>
>   

_______________________________________________
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