[governance] Nomcom and conflict of interest

[McTim]

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
<snip>
 I don't see why the caucus shouldn't focus on
> people who are more clearly identified with CS interests as they have
> developed through WSIS and IGF to date.
>

I suggest that the interests of the technical community ARE CS
interests, all the heat and noise around ICANN on this list bear this
out.


> Which leads to a next point... CS has been running an open process

Well, except for the nomcom ignoring our rules.

(and now
> open criticism), where is the same process from the technical community?

It's not about them, or government or the PS.  You and I haven't
signed on to the charter of those mailing lists (if they exist), but
we HAVE signed on to the charter of this list.

Now, we either amend the charter as I have suggested, or we amend it
to say "no technical community allowed to represent us".  If we do
nothing, we are telling future nomcom that it's ok to disregard the
notion of equality in our charter when they make decisions.

We
> have all agreed to improve transparency, is CS the only one to bother?
>
> It's often the case that civil society processes get messy because they are
> so open.

except for our nomcom, who didn't report back as required.

People get angry and frustrated (I know I do.)  So I'm wondering
> where is the tech community's open process: is someone coordinating names?
>  Who? What process was used? How was that process agreed? Who has been
> recommended? Were people from other interest groups considered? Were people
> from other interest groups recommended (was I considered/recommended :-) )
>

See George's reply above, he is far more eloquent than I could hope to be.

> George, McTim, Suresh: you've made a fuss over CS process (I think wrongly,
> it was consistent with discussion on the list that informed the nomcom),
> could you tell us about the tech community's process.

In general, yes.  They are open, transparent, archived, freely
available discussions where in my experience, no one has ever been
excluded from a position of responsibility because they work for
someone a very small group of politically motivated folk don't agree
with.

Oh, and they make decisions by consensus, not by a slim majority, as
appeared to be the case in our nomcom.

-- 
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