[governance] multistakeholding was Re: N & CoI

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

while we could amend the nomcom procedure to say that, and go through  
the voting thing and all that, i would argue that the intent of the  
caucus in this is more important then the words.

then again, assuming we ever have a vote for a new coordinator, it may  
not be that big a deal to amend the charter as you suggest.

i would go along with the change but i am not sure it is needed - who  
wants to go through this again?  when originally written it was meant  
to allow some flexibility and to be more of guideline, but if  
guidelines + plus the intent of the caucus to guard that the  
guidelines are followed in all but the most exceptional circumstances  
is not sufficient, then perhaps we need a formal voted change to the  
text.

a.


On 5 Jun 2008, at 18:32, McTim wrote:

>>>
>>> further discussion on the MAG nominations along with a simple  
>>> declaration
>>> that the next NomCom undertake to only make substantive decisions
>>> concerning
>>> the criteria for selection after broad consultation with the group.
>
> Where would we put this "declaration"?
>
> If we put it on the nomcom page, then I would rather remove the words
> "whenever possible" from the sentence:
>
> "Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by
> the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made"
>
> In other words, all future nomcoms MUST make make criteria public
> before they are used to select nominees.
>
> If we don't make it part of the charter/nomcompage, then what is to
> stop a future nomcom from "forgetting" about this declaration?

____________________________________________________________
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