AW: [governance] [process] the IGC charter

[Avri Doria]

hi,

from my biased view point:

our leaders are now preparing for the long overdue election for which  
we have 2 candidates.

instead of send the ballot to everyone and asking everyone who votes  
to confirm that they are CS members of IGC on the ballot (as i believe  
the charter requires), the coordinators have decided that it should  
only be sent to members who self declare before the ballot that they  
are members.

Parminder has, I beleive, sent everyone a message encouraging them to  
send him a message where they declare that they subscribe to the  
charter.

those who send him such a message (assuming they have been on the list  
for 2 months or more) will be called members and will be entitled to a  
ballot in the upcoming coordinator election.

some of use think this process runs counter to the charter of the  
IGC.  for some it is difficult to both participate in an event that is  
against the charter while claiming to support the charter.

i have decided that it would be redundant for anyone who voted in the  
past to send in such an email and that i will not take part in an  
activity that i see as being against the charter (not the collection  
of the pledges, but the act of calling only those people members and  
sending ballots only to those people)

and finally many people are sick of the discussion and some have asked  
that anyone discussing it mark the email with the subject indicator  
[process] so they could ignore it.  some few, even non members by  
virtue of having not voted in the previous election or in the charter  
ballot, have even said that discussing this makes the IGC appear  
ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

i figure that based on the coordinator's decision, i will be a non  
member by sometime tuesday.  that means i won't be able to vote for  
one of the two candidates for coordinator.  i think it also means i  
will no longer be qualified for the appeals team, which is also way  
overdue in terms of its renewal/replacement. it may also mean that i  
will no longer be in the position to appeal against the abrogation of  
the charter by the coordiantors.  but that will be up to the appeals  
team to decide - assuming i or anyone else actually goes to the effort  
to file an appeal.

cheers,

a.



On 13 Jul 2008, at 15:23, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:

> I was away from some communication the last three weeks.Can somebody  
> explain me in short word what is going on here? I do not understand  
> what does it mean to be or remain a member to be in or out?
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Gesendet: So 13.07.2008 20:06
> An: Governance Mailing List
> Betreff: Re: [governance] [process] the IGC charter
>
>
>
>
> On 13 Jul 2008, at 13:18, Bret Fausett wrote:
>
>>> I am probably no longer a member (or at least 2 days away from
>>> being de-facto ejected from the caucus) so my view on the charter
>>> is probably irrelevant...
>>
>>
>> In response to a private email from Parminder, I reviewed the
>> charter again. Personally, I've always had a problem with loyalty
>> oaths, but the charter looked completely benign to me, so I opted
>> in. What's the concern?
>
>
> Briefly, since I have already bored this list too much with my
> 'minority' opinion.
>
> - there is no intrinsic harm in asking people to say they agree with
> the charter.  in fac as a step between elections as a way to include
> mew people as members it is a good idea.
>
> - I and others have voted in the past so i am currently a member.  To
> use the new list being created by our coordinators now ignoring the
> charter and the list of people who voted before in the definition of
> membership is a violation of the charter in my view.
>
> - The charter requires that the vote be sent to all subscribers and
> that in the act of voting they (re) affirm their membership as CS and
> in the IGC as defined in the charter.  To use this list as is proposed
> by the coordinators, to define who can receive a ballot, is in breach
> of the charter as i read it.
>
> Personally, i cannot participate in an act which I believe is
> redundant for many of us, and which is in support of a breach of the
> charter - even if asking people to sign on to the charter is not a
> breach in and of itself - defining membership based on that is I
> believe such a breach, and only sending ballots to members so defined
> is certainly a breach.
>
> Once the voting list is sent out in contravention to the charter, it
> may be appealable, before then all i can do is state my position.
> Though it will be curious, if all those who did not take the oath are
> not members then will we have the right to appeal?
>
> Note: even if no longer a member, I do plan to remain active on this
> list - assuming I am allowed.
>
> 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