[governance] coordinator elections

[Avri Doria]

On 24 Apr 2008, at 10:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I am having trouble understanding the point of this debate.


Well i think it is a discussion between two viewpoints on the notion  
of the IGC and what membership means in the caucus.

I am arguing for a viewpoint that this is an open caucus that people  
pass into and out of in a very fluid manner.  We all participate in a  
list and it is only when we are doing membership types of activities,  
such as voting, that each of us needs to examine our continuing  
participation and our continuing relation to CS and determine if we  
consider ourselves members or just observers.  I believe this is a  
dynamic process that allows for maximum openness and flexibility.  And  
I believe it represents the way the charter was written.

If I understand Parminder correctly, he believes that we need a more  
solid notion of membership where people take a stand and affirm their  
membership through a statement of support prior to engaging in any  
activities that require membership.  I think he believes this is  
important to reinforce the commonality of members acceptance of the  
vision and mission.  And that it is important so that at any moment we  
have a list of who is a member who s not. He believes that this is  
inherent in the way the charter was written and its inclusion of the  
idea of support for the vision and mission.

In principle I do not believe there is anything wrong with this sort  
of membership notion, and when I tried to work with others to form the  
Multistakeholder Modalities WG we used exactly this notion - people  
had to declare their support of a charter based on mutlistakeholder  
principles in order to be members.

In this case, however, I do not think it is what we agreed to and i do  
not believe it is the best option for this caucus.

> It seems to me that Parminder is asking for a simple and sensible act:
> all those voting should confirm that they subscribe to the charter.  
> Why
> is this complicated?

The complication has nothing to do with the confirmation itself.  It  
has to do with the notion of doing it prior to the distribution of  
ballots as opposed to doing it as part of the vote.  I believe that we  
both think this is significant since we have differing opinions on it  
that we have discussed for a long time in private as well as public.   
I think our different viewpoints on a two stage process as opposed to  
one stage process is directly linked to our differing views of the  
caucus and the appropriate definition of membership.

> You will recognize my leitmotif today: let's move on.

By all means, though I do assume that the teams working on the  
proposals are all busy working on their proposals while we engage in  
belly button inspection.   One thing i think Parminder and I do agree  
on is that discussing what it means to be a participant/member of the  
caucus is a discussion that can occur usefully at some point.  Though  
of course this moment may not be the best moment.  But I am not sure  
how we will recognize when the right moment has come.

Note: I assume that Parminder can correct my impression of his view  
point.  i am sure that my simplistic explanations of his postions can  
use great improvement and refinement.

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