[governance] Process issues for future consensus calls

[shaila mistry]

HI Jeremy and Ginger
My vote and comments were not posted.  Can you please confirm that they were received
Correct full name is Shaila Rao Mistry

 
Challenge the challenges!
Rewrite the rules....Push the limits
Know only........... you are limitless






________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Sun, January 31, 2010 1:38:19 AM
Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls

Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling of the just-concluded drafting exercise and consensus call, and Bill and I continued that discussion off-list.  He suggested I bring it back on list, so I am going to summarise the underlying issues between us here (rather than, as in our off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't include such-and-such a comment in mind-numbing detail).

As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I have led, I will seek to draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach that incorporates these steps:

* Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it realistically draw, any support other than from its proponent?  (This is not an onerous test to pass.)

* If so, does it contradict the views of a significant number of other members that remain strongly held despite an adequate period of discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough consensus could emerge?

* If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy both camps where possible.

* If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied with the compromise, omit text on this issue from the statement altogether.

* Otherwise, include the text.

* My standard for including changes becomes more stringent when the last text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more so during the consensus call (when it is basically limited to correcting errors).

Bill differs from me on this process.  He will correct me if I mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers that all suggestions for changes (even contradictory ones) should be included in the text in brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy) consensus emerges.  Moreover if substantive changes are called for even after a consensus call, and there is sufficient time to re-open for discussion, the call should be rescinded.

It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we could experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need for confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's approach would (in my view) have required in this case.

If there is any interest in discussing these issues, this will be the thread in which to do so.
-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
KualaLumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 WismaWIM, 7 JalanAbangHajiOpeng, TTDI, 60000 KualaLumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100131/a0a32e5e/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t