[governance] Fwd: IGC Membership list

[McTim]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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)

My problem with it is that you "prefer" it to the charter text.  I
don't think it's up to you to make that decision!


>
> 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.


[  ]  Place an x in the box on the left if you affirm membership in the IGC.

Place an x in the box to the left of the candidates name you prefer
for IGC coordinator

[  ] Candidate A
[  ] Candidate B
[  ] Candidate C
[  ] None of the above

While the above is one way to do it in an email (and is closer to the
charter than what you propose), it may not be acceptable to all.

>
> 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.

On the contrary, when a process does not follow the charter, one is
obligated to make a protest.

-- 
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