[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[William Drake]

Hi,

Haven't had time recently for a daily entanglement with this thread, but
FWIW I support the rather rough consensus for a clean refresh approach in
which all nominees are treated equally.  I don't see how we could proceed
differently, and don't see this as being about trust or the lack thereof in
any particular individuals, 'throwing out' people, etc. And like others
who've addressed this, I fully expect that in the end a number of if not all
incumbents will back.

That said, I have a question.

On 3/18/08 5:09 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> I agree, let a nomcom make recommendations. And the caucus should
> make sure other interested groups know about the process and have the
> opportunity to either participate in what we're doing or submit names
> independently.

I'm not quite getting the argument about why the caucus should be submitting
names from elsewhere.  The IGC served as a focal point and funnel for other
CS groups during WSIS because it was part of a larger coalition, but WSIS is
over and so is that coalition.  And other CS groupings have and presumably
will submit independently.  If the main concerns people have been expressing
are about nominees/representatives advocating IGC positions in the MAG and
reporting back on the main trends there, why would we allocate scarce
nominee slots to folks who aren't here and hence wouldn't play those roles?

Thanks,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
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