[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

[Avri Doria]

On 29 Sep 2009, at 13:34, Paul Lehto wrote:

> (FWIW, my desire simply "to be heard" and understood far exceeds my
> desire to "win" some potential debate.


Often I have found that the only way to understand someone is to agree  
with them.*
I am not saying that is the case here.  Just a lesson that sticks in  
the front of my mind.

I for one, do think I understand your argument.
And I think I still disagree with it in relation to the IGC.

We have our rules, and our rules do not prohibit it.
No  matter what other rules in other places may say.
No matter what political theory of one ilk or the other may say.
No matter what the Theory of Pure Law or Jurisprudence may have to say  
about it.
And no matter what the Platonic Ideal of Governance might be.

Our rules give the coordinator's leeway to make their decisions based  
on the guidelines
and constraints in the charter and on what they feel is in the best  
interests of the community.

If 4 members seriously don't like any decision, they can appeal it.
If 4 members really really don't like the coordinators or see a  
pattern of abuse they can appeal for a recall vote.

And if we are ok with it or can at least live with it, we let it go  
and move on, even if we aren't 100% happy.


a.

* Had a philosophy professor like that in grad school.  Since i did  
not agree with him, i obviously did not fully understand and got a B  
instead of an A.  The course was on Hume, which was ironic really  
since Hume was charged with being a heretic and, though acquitted,  
never quite understood in his time.
____________________________________________________________
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