[governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members

Tue Aug 25 11:30:00 EDT 2009

See correspondence below.

The implication of the interpretation in Parminder's post is that list members cannot abstain in votes for coordinator if they wish to be able to vote in any charter amendment that takes place before the subsequent coodinator election.  

I don't personally recall if I voted in the last coordinator election, so am not sure how this would affect me.  However, it seems to me that the right of abstention is and should be part of normal democratic process and that choosing to exercise it in one case should not lead to the removal of voting rights in another.  If the charter really does suggest this, then I would have thought it needs amending here as well.

It would be interesting to know the number voting in the last election compared with the number then entitled to vote.

David Souter

----- Start Original Message -----
Sent: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:23:33 +0530
From: Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members

> 
> 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

----- End Original Message -----
____________________________________________________________
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