[governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members

[Parminder]

No, I wont appeal. i give my word :).

I leave it to the co-coordinators to decide both on the present issue of 
voters list for charter amendment, and to sort out the wider membership 
issue if they wish to. Parminder

Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090825/68a8a944/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