[governance] coordinator elections

[Adam Peake]

>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"


You are right about what the charter says, but I believe Avri is 
correct in quoting the text from the poll used when we voted on the 
charter and so created the caucus.

I am pretty sure I was one of the people (three?) who voted against 
the charter.  But I considered the act of voting a commitment to the 
IGC and my membership of it. By voting I was agreeing to abide by the 
majority decision. This is common (unless the vote part of a GNSO 
policy development process ... :- )

I subscribe to the charter, but that does not mean I support it 100%. 
I know that as a member I have the right to try and amend the charter 
(Meryem, that's your point, right.  Of course you can be a member and 
want to change some aspect of an organization, your membership shows 
a willingness to follow the "rules" until such time as you can affect 
the change you want.  In good faith  etc  etc... and I'm not 
suggesting you have bad faith :-) )

If I want to stop being a member I can write to a coordinator, or to 
the list (as Veni did) and say I am no longer a member.  Or I could 
simply unsubscribe from the list (but subscribing to the list does 
not = membership of the caucus.)  I consider myself to be a member 
until I decide otherwise, or I do something so foul that the 
membership finds a way to kick me out.

I see no need to ask people who have voting rights (i.e. all who had 
the right to vote in the last election we held, was it for the 
appeals team?) to reaffirm membership.  If they are still subscribed 
to the list they are still members.

Anyone subscribed to the list who wishes to be a member should write 
to the coordinator (or person coordinating membership) and say they 
wish to be a member, that they have read the charter and subscribe to 
it.  Parminder, you could write to the list asking people to do just 
that. Perhaps do it a couple of times over the next few weeks.

Anyone who has been subscribed for more than two months before the 
date the election process begins gets to vote.  (And please, let's 
not start the election process until after the next consultation, say 
around May 25, so people who responded to the membership call can 
participate.)

I think we a re making things more complicated than they need to be.

Best,

Adam


>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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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