[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

[Ian Peter]

Paul, I would like to think there is a way your offer could be taken up, and
as I suggested earlier I do not believe the charters problems can be solved
by dealing with one little bit at a time. There are a number of sections
which need amending and clarification and it would be a great service to
this group if someone would take this on. I would certainly support you if
you were willing to head up such a working group - but for me, with only
about a month of my term as co coordinator to run, (I am counting the days)
I would not be prepared to take a central role of any sort. BY all means
write to me off list if you would like to take this on and I would happily
work with you towards getting a working group established.

In the meantime - we have a month to go to the IGF meeeting, and I do hope
that on this list we can start to put attention towards what we are doing as
a group there and some of the issues we need to address.






On 30/09/09 6:12 AM, "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd be happy to draft a charter amendment if one were desired, but
> without the stipulation that the principles of reason and construction
> of language apply with force, literally anything I would draft, no
> matter how clear, would be a waste of time and utterly ineffective in
> binding the freedom of administrators (the point of such election
> provisions).
> 
> Also, in this specific case, no further rules are needed in the
> charter to resolve the question, because the 2/3 rule implies that the
> 2/3 must exist in a normal election day time period and not over a
> week, month, or year.
> 
> If the above case is not sufficiently clear in its prohibition of
> extensions for purposes or effect of meeting the 2/3 rule, then no
> amount of drafting, no matter how precise, will be sufficient to tie
> the hands of any person of even average intelligence who is committed
> to getting around the words and told he's got the "leeway" to do so.
> And I consider all here quite above average in intelligence.
> 
> So, on another subject, I'd be happy to draft an amendment, but on
> this one it's hopeless.
> On 9/29/09, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable law
>>> that negates the actions
>>> taken by the coordinators.  In my opinion, they have behaved within the
>>> limits of the charter.
>>> 
>>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> If there was no appeal made within the 72 hours, the issue is moot.
>> 
>> Paul, please write a charter amendment if you feel that voting rules need to
>> be further specified.
>> 
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> McTim
>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
>> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> 
> 


____________________________________________________________
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