[governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members

[Avri Doria]

i disagree.
i guess one of us will be appealing which ever way they go.

a.


On 25 Aug 2009, at 09:53, Parminder wrote:

> 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
>>

____________________________________________________________
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