[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list

[McTim]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.


no, it's much more nuanced than that, all one has to do is to
ascertain they are a member and vote, if they click the little radio
button that says "Yes" when asked to affirm membership of the IGC.  If
they click "No", then they don't get to see the next screen (where one
votes).  That's how I see it anyway.


>
> 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.

Despite the fact that it doesn't match what it says in the charter?

Why don't you seek to change the charter text instead?

>
> 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.

See above for the way I think it should work, web page wise, which
would eliminate any possible mess and confusion in re: the above.

>
>
> (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.

Which pray tell? I see nothing not covered by the current charter's flexibility.

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

Anyone can join at anytime, and, as AD said they are "full members in
everything but voting", can't say fairer than that, can you?

What's unfair is your trying to make this decision without consensus
(that I haven't seen you declare).

> (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.

because, we are not a political party or an "organization", the
charter doesn't provide for having a list, except the one that is
published after a vote.  It does, however provide a uniform process
for all.

> 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,

Just because we didn't get it right last time, doesn't mean we should
repeat the same mistake.  I think last time was a better effort than
this time (where we are willfully not following the charter).

> and the term participant has mostly been used here as a list participant
> different from member as per the charter criterion.

Just because people use it as shorthand, doesn't mean that the use of
the term is accurate.


 So your vigilance about
> what is charter violation is quite partisan, one must say.

On the contrary, when I feel the charter is violated, I speak up about
it.  The affirmation used last time didn't trigger any alarms for me
at least.


> 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...
>

It''s not that your membership expires, it's that you can't vote in
this particular instance.

So, your proposing to keep a list and let everyone on the members list
vote for a charter change in violation of the charter?

> 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..
>

The "necessary organizational process" as Avri says is a change in the
charter, something I have been advocating for many weeks now.

> 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.

In this case, your personal agenda seems to be making a list, asking
people to affirm before they vote, not as they do it.

 Otherwise you look like just doing some nitpicking in face of an
> important organizational process.

Standing on principle is picking nits?  If so, I am in good company,
see AD and JHs latest mails.

-- 
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