[governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants

[Ken Lohento]

Dear Vittorio

Vittorio Bertola a écrit :

> P.S. I would be against the suggestion that Ken posted, that people 
> should specify in advance what they would say, and would be picked 
> according to that. It's a good road for cross-vetoing and advance 
> censorship.


I understand what you mean. It's why I proposed that only half of the 
speakers are selected based on that process. So it's less risky. And if 
the AG is well balanced and/or functions well (and if the Secretariat 
plays well its role) censorship can be reduced. But as you know, people 
can be vetoed just because of what some people know of them, or what the 
web tells about them, without no summary of what they intend to say 
actually. The advantage of a short note on what some speakers want to 
say is that it should give actual suggestions/information on the 
added-value of what they want to say and the selection process would be 
based on more objective facts.

All this proves at least that there is a real need to establish, as now 
the AG mandate implies more formally, clear criteria, methods of work, 
for speaker selection or for the AG decision making process for example.

Thanks


Ken L
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance