[governance] Rules decide Membership not existing Members

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi David,

from what I remember one could vote for "none of the above". Would such
an option meet the right of abstention in your view?

This is not a rhetoric question. I find this an interesting debate 
because I respect both perspectives, the democratic right of abstention 
but also the wish (as reflected in the charter) to restrict votes on 
charter amendments to those who care enough about this group to 
occasionally participate at least in a minimum way.

jeanette


David Souter wrote:
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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