[governance] coordinator elections

[Parminder]

Avri

> i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
> charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
> you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort
> of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
> ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
> the charter of the IGC..

Also to clarify I don't interpret the intention of the charter to mean that

 
" the act of filling out the
> ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> a reminder of what it means to vote"

Charter says

"As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they
are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in
this charter..."

I mean 'voter must personally ascertain' to mean clearly and positively
ascertain and not by a roundabout implication. 

And instead of submitting 'I do ascertain that I am a member of the IGC
based on membership criteria mentioned (elsewhere) in the charter'

It is much more straightforward to ask for the statement (made easy to do by
just copy pasting) 

'I do ascertain that I have read the charter at .... and subscribe to it'

Since the charter mentions such subscription as the only substantive
criterion of membership.

This has to be done as a part of the voting process. Now, as I said, whether
voting process is one step or two, is matter of practicality. I am unable to
believe that we have arguing so long for this bit.... wherein couple of
suggestions that I work within the charter, and that I am trying to ram in
my views came in.

What is it really that we are disputing so hard????

Parminder 

 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:20 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 24 Apr 2008, at 02:13, Parminder wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> that membership is up to each of the individual participants
> >
> > You again seem to make the distinction between member and
> > participant, which
> > I used to develop my logic in the last email, in interpreting the
> > charter.
> 
> yes. it seems to me the concept of membership matters when we do
> official caucus stuff - like vote.  or make nomcoms. or act as
> coordinators ...
> 
> >> with no
> >> need for any declaration except for when doing things like voting.
> >
> >
> > I also asked it at the time of voting only, and for the purpose of
> > voting.
> 
> then we are in agreement?
> 
> > Still cant understand why we wrote that line in membership clause '
> > who
> > subscribe to the charter of the caucus'.
> 
> i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
> charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
> you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort
> of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
> ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
> the charter of the IGC..
> 
> > In this spirit I expect to soon
> > hear that all that lofty stuff in vision and mission, and objectives
> > is also
> > as meaningless.
> 
> ok:  i wonder, does signing a statement saying you support lofty stuff
> in vision and mission really mean anything?   and even if it does mean
> something personally, why do you think that other people's
> interpretations of what the lofty stuff means bears any resemblance to
> what you think it means or what i think it means?
> 
> 
> > There is no group upholding any special collective vision
> > and values and seeking to organize to do some specific set of
> > activities in
> > direction of certain goals. Well..
> 
> 
> i think the stuff the caucus does or doesn't do is what matters.  and
> after one looks back at the product of the IGC one will be able to see
> if those lofty vision words meant something and what they actually
> meant.
> 
> a.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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