[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Mawaki Chango]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/29/10, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I really don't think the rule of voting at one election prior to be
> formally
> > considered member is such a hurdle that some people make it sound. After
> > all, how often does that membership status have any consequence? People
> on
> > the list can always vote at any time. Only certain decisions, of
> particular
> > importance for the group, require as condition for participation that
> one's
> > involvement be old of 1 vote casted, or that one did not miss the
> previous
> > vote. Is that really too much?
>
> The idea being debated is not an interpretation that voting in ANY
> single prior election qualifies for Charter voting, but the
> IMMEDIATELY prior election.
>

I got that, and that's what I meant. Granted, my wording missed the time
*continuity* aspect of the "1 vote old" condition at the time of the charter
amendment vote (although the alternate proposition "one did not miss the
previous vote" that followed is rather clear in that regard.)


>
> Recall that there have been elections in which, before the election is
> over, people have to be urged to vote in order to have a quorum.
> Regardless of the type of election, it shows that with everyone's busy
> schedules, turnout can be a problem.  Thus, after every election there
> is a rotating but relatively large number of people disqualified for
> the next election if it is a Charter vote, and those people are not by
> any means just newcomers to the list.  It could be anybody.  It has
> included me.
>


Probably as several other people here, I once took a long leave of absence
from this list and IGC altogether due, namely, to a busy schedule as you
noted may happen. I'm sure I missed votes during that time, one of which
might have been for a charter amendment (or the first vote after I resumed
participation might have been). And I accept the consequences, whatever they
may be, based on the group's constitutional rule. So I perfectly understand
it's not just a problem of newcomers (hence the "elders" vs "young ones"
dichotomy made earlier is not the point; anybody may slip out of membership
at any time.) You may also want to note that our elections generally run
several days, maybe 2 weeks or so.

In conclusion, for my part, I'm not partaking in a debate as to whether that
rule is a perfect or the best one. If people want to see it changed, I'm
sure the charter provides for ways to initiate such action. I hope it's
understood that it is not my intent to speak against a motion for amendment.
I believe the problem initially was whether with respect to our latest
decisionmaking procedures we were following our charter provisions as they
stand now (and I was commenting on a particular interpretation of the rule
which did not reflect, in my view, the positive spirit in which it was set
up. Nevertheless, even with the right interpretation, the rule can still be
challenged and changed.)

Thanks

Mawaki


>
> --
>  Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-2334
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100930/ec86bd06/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