[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list

[Parminder]

> Specifically,
> > do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to the
> > charter.
> 
> Like Avri (I think), It's to be done in the voting act, not before.


I am sticking with the two step process, for reason I mentioned, but just
clarifying your stand. So, you are fine if as a part of the ballot one has
to affirm that I have read the charter and subscribe to it, before one casts
the vote.

I have earlier and again in this thread that I am fine with this, and this
serves the charter's membership criteria. However there are some operational
difficulties whereby I prefer a two step process.

And I repeat them

(1) I know with comparable experience that many people will not respond to
part (1) of such a ballot requiring affirmation of subscription to the
charter and go ahead and vote. That cause confusion if the membership
criterion is met, and things become messy in the middle of a voting process.


(2) People who do not vote for some reason will not be in the members list,
which creates issues with couple of IGC processes that may have membership
implications.

(3) Those who join between voting processes have to wait long - for a voting
process - to become full members. This is unfair. 

(4) If in any case people joining in between voting episodes can become
members by directly subscribing to the charter, why cant  a uniform process
be followed for all, and a full list of existing members kept, and regularly
updated. 

There are some gaps and lack of clarity in the charter, and the process of
voting in the last elections was also not done as per the charter. There was
no charter subscription assertion in the ballot, or even a 'membership as
per charter' assertion, only affirmation of being a CS participant of IGC,
and the term participant has mostly been used here as a list participant
different from member as per the charter criterion. So your vigilance about
what is charter violation is quite partisan, one must say.

There is also a difference in the charter between voters eligibility for
normal voting process and for amending the charter (which has confusing
definition of the 'last voters list' - whereby by not voting ones membership
expires, something you spoke against in your email)and also membership
criterion as mentioned in the membership part and charter amending part...

Such gaps and lack of clarity is normal in the early life of such documents,
and we should address them soon. Meanwhile if we are able to work together
in good faith and go through the necessary organizational processes, it will
be mutually useful..

After all, when you yourself quite clearly believe in affirming subscription
to the charter, what exactly is the personal agenda that you suspect I am
pushing through the process that I am steering... can you be specific about
it. Otherwise you look like just doing some nitpicking in face of an
important organizational process. 

Parminder 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:34 PM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list
> 
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > McTim
> >
> >>She is simply explaining that we affirm membership during the voting act
> as
> >>per the charter.
> >
> > You do not mention the issue of 'subscribing to the charter', which is
> the
> > criterion of membership as per the charter, at all here.
> 
> It's quite implicit.  Those who affirm membership while voting ARE
> subscribing to the charter by that act.
> 
> "(i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to
> vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a
> personal decision based on the criteria defined."
> 
>  Interestingly, this
> > was a strong refrain throughout your discussions on the IGIs and nomcom
> > issue... you kept pledging by 'all those who subscribe to the
> charter'.....
> >
> 
> WAS? it's still an open issue AFAICS.
> 
> >>Forcing us to
> >> "register" to vote beforehand is not what I agreed to when I signed
> >> the charter.
> >
> > When did you sign the charter - by voting for it? Well, unfortunately
> while
> > we have the list of all those who voted during the charter vote, there
> is no
> > break up of who voted for and who against. Should I take all those who
> > voting during this vote (even those who opposed it) as having signed the
> > charter ? I can, but is this your view.
> >
> 
> This is not my view, I wish you would refrain from telling me what my
> view is, you get it wrong all too often.
> 
> Read the charter again, it's fairly simple:
> 
> "All individuals subscribed to the IGC mail list will be given voter
> accounts. In order to qualify to vote on the charter, the prospective
> voter will first need to affirm that they qualify as a member of the
> group as described elsewhere in the charter. "
> 
> 
> > Or did you sign by voting in the coordinators elections, but then do
> those
> > who didn't vote become non members (see my last email)
> 
> Why would not voting change membership status?  Just because one
> affirms membership during the voting act doesn't imply that one
> becomes a non-member by not voting.
> 
> >
> > Also, should the membership list be frozen after charter and co-
> coordinator
> > votes,
> 
> no
> 
> or can I again ask all those on the list if they are willing to
> > subscribe and become members....
> 
> no
> 
> >
> > Since we do not have a clear members list what exactly is so evil in
> saying,
> > well lets have one, and things will be simpler from there on.
> 
> There is nothing simpler than asking people to affirm membership
> during the voting act.  It's only when trying to "register" and
> dispense ballots that complexity comes into play.  The "evil" is that
> you are trying to change our procedures that are clearly written into
> the charter.
> 
> Specifically,
> > do you also like Avri have a problem in saying, yes, I subscribe to the
> > charter.
> 
> Like Avri (I think), It's to be done in the voting act, not before.
> 
> Or is it that you find this as another good issue to oppose
> > something I am trying to do and enter into endless arguments.
> 
> I find it another example of you pushing your agenda on the group
> without respecting the clear instructions in our charter.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

____________________________________________________________
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