[governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members

[Parminder]

Avri

 >...so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the 
first charter or any of the elections is on the >published members list 
and is entitled to > vote and, almost as important, is part of the total 
membership count >that determines what 2/3 of members is equal to...

How much ever I may like to agree with you, the charter is clear that 
only those who voted in *the* and not *any* previous election are 
eligible to vote for charter amendment.

In our earlier long discussions on IGC membership criteria I had 
mentioned a couple of times that this could become a problem criterion. 
Also for this reason we mentioned on the ballot when Ian got elected 
that one *had* to vote to be able to be eligible to vote for any ensuing 
charter amendment.

I agree with Fearghas that it is odd that membership of IGC should 
depend on a random event which may or may not happen at regular 
intervals. I also agree with Ronald that we should do 'a more regular 
"count" of who is a member and who isn't'.

This basically also goes to the question we argued so long on this list 
that everybody got fed up - should aspiring IGC members not be able to 
just write to coordinators affirming the charter and seeking IGC 
membership, rather only being able to do so on the ballot paper, which 
if they miss, well....

This still doesnt solve the present problem about charter wording on 
eligibility for charter amendment voting, but if we regularize how IGC 
membership is obtained/ ascertained etc, we can write new text in the 
charter which could make clear and workable provisions for voting 
eligibility for charter amendment.

For the present I am afraid, it is my understanding that the 
co-coordinators will need to go by the clear wording of the charter for 
such an important matter as amending the charter. It is not the ideal 
situation. I want all long standing members to vote. But we should take 
up charter amendment for that.

My two cents.

parminder


Avri Doria wrote:
> hi,
>
> my opinions on two of the subject being discussed
>
>> If it was fixed in the middle, say 6-8 months on the list, that would 
>> be understandable but I don't see why such a wide ranging period of 
>> time is acceptable.
>
> the capture criteria was not time based but was based on having made 
> the commitment for reasons others then changing the charter. so yes, 
> the time ends up being variable.
>
> at some point everyone on the voting list made a commitment to the IGC 
> and its charter. either they voted on the original charter when it was 
> written, or they voted in one of the elections. that means they are on 
> the list of members that resulted at the end of the last elections.
>
> the charter treats decision related to the coordinators differently 
> then those related to the charter. other then one being based on time 
> criteria and one based on activity criteria, decision related to 
> coordinators, either voting them in or out are based on 2/3 of voters, 
> while the charter decsions are 2.3 of members.
>
>
>> who write about governance contrive who should be eligible to vote 
>> and change rules to effect who they want to have a vote
>
> that is a misstatement of what is going on. the charter is not a 
> library full of law books were every single possible detail is spelled 
> out in gory detail. there are all sorts of border conditions that may 
> require human judgement. one of the things we expect from the 
> coordinators is this judgement. when we elect the coordinators, we are 
> electing people we trust to make these judgement when called upon to 
> do so.
>
> but since judgement can sometimes be wrong no matter how trustworthy 
> the individual and can sometimes be arbitrary, we have an appeals team 
> so that that judgement can be judged and overruled if it is ever 
> necessary to do so. and the appeals team even has the ability to 
> decide that the person serving as coordinator is so flawed that the 
> community needs to reconsider that person's fitness as coordinator. we 
> have not used these mechanisms yet and i hope we never do, but they 
> are there to make sure that the will of the members is adhered to (i.e 
> the democratic criteria and the check and balances).
>
>> any rules should be followed properly, and doing that may require a 
>> more regular "count" of who is a member and who isn't. Something for 
>> the co-ordinators to consider.
>
> i believe that is what they are trying to do. we have a posted voters 
> list on the web site. now some people have left the list and come 
> back. does this mean they are no longer members? or some people have 
> quit because they could not stand the way the list was going because 
> we do seem to have lost our way on occasion and then come back; are 
> they no longer members? and some people have left the list because 
> some of the discussion have been so disgusting to them; are they no 
> longer members?
>
> (an aside anyone who wants to stop receiving email can just stop the 
> email for a while - the vacation feature - without quitting. you can 
> do it yourself or can ask any of the list servants to take care of it. 
> as one of those list servants, i would be more then happy to explain 
> how to do it yourself or to do it for you. and before anyone asks who 
> the list servants are: they are ex coordinators who did the list 
> serving at the time of being coordinators and who weren't so disgusted 
> when the left that position that they kept doing it even after their 
> terms had ended. we do it at the sufferance of the current 
> coordinators who can kick us to the curb anytime they want to.)
>
> so while it seems clear to me that anyone who ever voted, on the first 
> charter or any of the elections is on the published members list and 
> is entitled to vote and, almost as important, is part of the total 
> membership count that determines what 2/3 of members is equal to - 
> i.e. the threshold necessary for a successful amendment. on anything 
> that is not covered specifically, the border cases i referred to 
> previously, the coordinators have the responsibility and liability of 
> making a judgement. and if we members think they blew it, then we have 
> the opportunity to ask the appeals team to review their decision.
>
> a.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20090825/6637c783/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