[governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Yes, but as you are the coordinator responsible for the caucus  
following its rules, I thought that was the most salient point in your  
message.

As I mentioned in an email along time of ago, I thought we made a  
mistake in not following our rules (all of the other issues are  
irrelevant to me - at this point anyway).  I think we have a  
procedural problem that needs to fixed if his group is ever going to  
try and use a nomcom process again and that is that we follow the rules:

- have a non voting chair (#3) responsible for following the rules.

    3. A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each
       nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve  
as a chair,
       it is recommended that a person has served in at least one  
nomcom previously.

    (i have already admitted giving bad advice on this one, i thought  
it could work
     without one and think now that i was wrong)

- publish criteria to be used before using the criteria (#5)

    5. Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be  
reviewed by the caucus
        whenever possible before decisions are made

While is debatable whether there was time for a full discussion of the  
criteria before the decisions were made, it is also the case that the  
criteria were not published until after the decision were made.  I  
have heard no one make the claim that they were not published because  
they did not have time.  And while I think the time for discussion  
might be limited in some cases limited, i think that before the fact  
publication is possible in almost all cases.

As I understand the 'motion' for ending this amicably was that we  
would do our best to follow our rules in the future.   Though I guess  
if we cannot say that, then perhaps McTim does have enough support to  
call for a vote on amending the chartered nomcom rules.

And while a lot of what you have to say personally about your beliefs  
on whether ITC organizations are different then ITC individuals and  
whether they should or should not be allowed to ...., what is most  
important to me, in this case as you are the coordinator of the caucus  
is your unwillingness to say that you will work to see that we will  
abide by the rules in the future.

and i agree with Bill, people who want to continue this discussion of  
whether being paid by an ITC org creates an impenetrable barrier to  
participating as CS  should do so in a group that comes back with a  
resolution to that conundrum when they reach one.






On 7 Jun 2008, at 07:17, Parminder wrote:

>
>>>
>>> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message
>>> are we
>>> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group
>>> clearly
>>> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement.
>>
>>
>> you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should
>> follow the written  rules and publish its criteria before its makes  
>> it
>> selections?
>
>
> Avri, You are asking me to re write the whole email I wrote a little  
> while
> earlier, which in view of other members' sensibilities I am unable to.
> Parminder
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:30 PM
>> To: Governance Caucus
>> Subject: Re: [governance] nomcom's creteria - was multistakeholding
>>
>>
>> On 7 Jun 2008, at 02:11, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What gratefulness are we showing to this nomcom, and what message
>>> are we
>>> giving to the future ones, by chastising it for doing what the group
>>> clearly
>>> meant it to do... In light of above, I cant support this statement.
>>
>>
>> you cannot support support a statement that the next nomcom should
>> follow the written  rules and publish its criteria before its makes  
>> it
>> selections?
>>
>> 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
>

____________________________________________________________
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