[governance] In response to avri's volunteer proposal

[Jeremy Shtern]

Hi Avri and everyone,

I think what you have outlined below (the proposal for volunteers doing 
a first draft of principles for each of the list topics) strikes a nice 
balance between formal group drafting and rough, discussion based consensus.

Looking at the list however, I personally don't see how some of these 
topics can be approached independently and simultaneously.

This is not to criticise the list and it might do nothing other than 
prove I would be a bad volunteer; but it seems to me that some of these 
categories need to be dealt with in a iterative drafting process; that 
is to say for example that I find it hard to  imagine how we can tackle 
the issue "decisions" (which presumably means decision making) without 
first setting the parameters of "membership". I would raise similar 
questions about pairs such as "objectives" and "tasks" or "objectives", 
"vision" and "mission" and "relationship of IGC to CSP" etc.

Others however, I think can be tackled on a stand alone basis such as 
"coordination", "working methods" etc.

Here are some suggestions of possible ways to accomplish this:

1.) If their are volunteers who think that there are specific topics 
that they can personally do a first-draft of right now without any need 
for prior clarification of other elements- independent variable topics 
we could call them-  they should be encouraged to and thanked for so doing.

2.) With the remaining topics- the dependant variable topics- we could 
then institute an iterative drafting process. This could be more or less 
collective. One idea might be to invite volunteers to do something over 
a shorter period (say 3 days) one after the other. In other words, for 
example,  we would take a volunteer today to do "aim/mission" and then, 
in 3 days discuss it on the list. At the conclusion of that discussion 
we could take a volunteer to do "objectives". That way we would work 
through the list (excluding the topics we define as 'independent 
variable topics')  in not much more than Avri's 2 week period proposed, 
but would examine each topic within the context of the somewhat 
necessary context of the previous topics. When we have worked through 
the list of dependant variable topics, we would then combine the first 
drafts on these with the first drafts on the independent variable topic 
and would have a 'full set' of first drafts.

3.) Another, less complicated possibility is to just group the similar 
topics. That is to say that rather have 1 volunteer working 
independently on "aim/mission" and another working independently on 
"objectives"- and, as such running the risk that the two volunteers are 
going to come back with entirely incompatible  perspectives on two 
topics that really do need to be reflect each other, we could simply ask 
for volunteers to do:

1. Vision; Aim/mission; Objectives; Relationship of IGC to CSP
2. Tasks; working methods
3. Membership; decisions (decision making)
4. Cordination

(Or some other alternative/better thematic grouping of the task on the 
list) and then report back in 1-2 weeks as Avri suggests.

Discussion of these suggestions is of course contingent upon others 
sharing the perspective that an iterative drafting process is required 
to address our very useful list of topics in the way that Avri suggests. 
That may well not be the case.

Kind regards from Montréal,

Jeremy Shtern
(Université de Montréal)


Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry I had not understood.  I think it is an idea that can be used  
> if the caucus wishes.
>
> I think that at least a small group to get together within the caucus  
> to come up with the first draft.  one that we can put on this wiki,  
> or other collaborative environment, we will have (I am looking about  
> for a place to host one now - any ideas?) and then the entire caucus  
> can work on it and discuss it and come to rough consensus on it.
>
> Perhaps a way to start (and forgive me for already moving to the  
> future before the end of the week - i do seem to part of the equation  
> we are accepting) is that we find a volunteer or 2 for each item in  
> Nnenna's outline, except perhaps etc which we can save for later.
>
> what do you all think?  give each volunteer 1-2 weeks to come up with  
> an basic draft - does not need to be polished, just something for  
> people to throw ideas at - could even be more questions then answers  
> if that is all there is at this point. these editors could then be  
> the caretakers of that text as we moved forward if they wished,  
> though the decision control would belong to the caucus.
>
> thanks
> a.
>
> On 2 maj 2006, at 08.11, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>   
>> Avri Doria ha scritto:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>> i think it might mean the loss of the IGC and its history and the   
>>> role it has been able to achieve.
>>> or what might happen, is that some people will go off and start   
>>> working on the new working group, while the rest of the people  
>>> stay  on IGC and eventually figure it out.
>>>
>>> but of course, someone can do this anytime, it does not take a
>>> decision of the IGC for someone to go off and start something new.
>>>       
>> Sorry, possibly I didn't explain well what I meant. The new working  
>> group would work out a charter *for the IGC*, not for a new entity;  
>> it would then get back to the list to get the charter approved. The  
>> objecive of my proposal was just to get out of the deadlock due to  
>> the lack of consensus on your appointment as "single coordinator" -  
>> not to start anything new!
>> -- 
>> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] 
>> <-----
>> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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