[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list

[Parminder]

>The charter currently defines membership in the first way.  Some seem to
>want some version of the second definition.

Avri

The charter is clear about how it defines membership. To quote

"The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who
subscribe to the charter of the caucus."

And this is from the 'Membership' section which is way up in the charter,
immediately after objectives and tasks of the IGC, and not from the voting
section, which comes much later. Obviously this definition of membership has
a greater meaning than just episodic meaning only at times of voting.
However, generally in all aspects of deliberative activity etc on the list -
and I agree with you on this - no distinction is made between those who may
have subscribed to the charter and those who haven't.  

We are working within this definition of membership and not outside the
charter as you seem to imply.

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:54 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think the problem we are having is 2 (or probably more) different
> ideas of membership.
> 
> One is that that for all intents and purpose all those on the list are
> full members in everything but voting.  For voting one must hold to
> charter in order to vote.    I..e they can particpate in consensus
> discussions and everything else - except a vote.
> 
> Another is that there are two type of list members, those who are
> Caucus members and those who are not.  And that at any moment in time
> we should be able to distinguish real members from list members.
> 
> The charter currently defines membership in the first way.  Some seem
> to want some version of the second definition.  If there is a majority
> who want to change the charter it can be changed. And there are subtle
> changes or major change we could make if that is what we are into.
> 
> My issue is with living up to the charter we have and changing it
> explicitly if that is what we want to do.
> 
> As for trolls, I would think that netiquette is netiquette and all
> list members are the same in that respect.  Or do you suggest that a
> voting member of the caucus should have more permission to engage in
> bad netiquette then a non voting member?
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Jun 2008, at 18:06, William Drake wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> now that Avri explained the problem to me, I support Avri's
> >> objection.
> >> Through the act of voting, people acknowledge the charter and agree
> >> to be
> >> members of this caucus - not the other way around.
> >
> > But we never vote.  So we have no idea which of the 360 list
> > subscribers are caucus members, which affects how one deals with
> > consensus building, troll disruptions, etc.
> >
> > BD
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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