[governance] Trying to "fix" the list

[Carlton Samuels]

I support Avri's idea.

Quite apart from the transparency objective I know we all can support, I am
troubled that expressing a contrary opinion, even if it is less than
collegial or even polite, is seen as cause to censor.

Maybe it's because I am now steeped in the somewhat brutal politics of
academia.........but a bruised ego should be acceptable collateral damage in
any full and frank discussion.

Carlton Samuels

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list.  Especially
> given the number of well respected people who are participants on the list
> and not 'members'.
>
> I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from transparency
> (not matter what i feel about being personally baited from time to time) and
> because it would end a very important kind of outreach this list has - one
> can sign up, be here, participate and then decide to join when it came time
> to vote on something (or sooner if wished).
>
> If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller side
> lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a statement on
> x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others, but with open
> archives.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>  Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to later
>> be voted upon and approved by the list?
>>
>> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related topics".
>> This would be an open list. We would change the governance list from an open
>> list to a moderated membership, where new members would have to be approved
>> by the coordinators upon signing up.
>>
>> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if it is
>> not directly related to IG process substance. This would be one of the
>> duties of the coordinators, and would not require approval, vote or
>> consensus.
>>
>> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to the
>> charter.
>>
>> Is this practical, appropriate, legal?
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we should take
>> pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not think that is a proper
>> procedure, although I have to admit, I would be willing to do it, and then
>> resign for improper conduct, if I thought the ICG would be able to make it
>> stick :o)
>>
>> gp
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090812/a541d5ed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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