[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list

[Parminder]

McTim

> 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

We will be doing email based voting rather than web based because more
members are comfortable to do so.. I did discuss the possibility, in my
discussion on this subject a few months back, of doing it more automatically
like you say. But I am unable to find that technical option, while doing it
with emails. 

As for saying 'yes' to what you describe as affirming membership, I prefer a
more elaborate - "I have read the charter at .... and I am willing to
subscribe to it, and hence accept the membership of IGC". (Can you state
your problem with this description vis a vis a plain 'I affirm membership of
the IGC". Is there any real difference because of which we are getting into
this avoidable and endless debates)

That's exactly what I am doing. I don't have the technical option to do it
automatically if (1) is done to automatically go to (2), i.e. the ballot.
Therefore I am doing it manually. 

If someone can give me a good technical option which will work in the
situation of this caucus's membership I will be happy. In fact I had asked
for such suggestions earlier... If you don't have such an option let me do
it manually in two steps as I am doing it.

In any case raising such methods issues, with no substantive implications,
when a process has already commenced is very disruptive, and should be
avoided.

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 4:22 AM
> To: Parminder
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list
> 
> 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