[governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a

[Avri Doria]

On 26 Sep 2010, at 10:21, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> n 26.09.2010 08:36, McTim wrote:
>> Im not sure this rises to the level of a charter amendment.
> 
> 
> Hi, should we perhaps clarify first whether Jeremy's suggestions require an amendment of the charter?
> 
> jeanette


Hi,

I thought about that myself.

While the nomcom rules are called out in the charter

> All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process as defined here.

with here == http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2

One could argue that they are not properly part of the charter.  I would tend to argue that they are include by reference and hence are part of the charter and that while it is possible that one could try to work around them without going through a charter amendment process, I believe it is best to be maximalist about these things and use the amendment process.  This is especially because sometime the recommendation of nomcom can be controversial* and it is best to be careful about changing the rules for such things.

So I supported the process  choice of the co-coordinators.

However it also occurred to me that at the time of writing the nomcom process, the idea that we would need 3 ongoing selections processes at the same time did not occur to people.  Certainly did not occur to me and I was holding the 'pen' on our process documents at the time.  So instead of amending something with a one time fix, it occurred to me that we had a shortcoming in the process that was easy to fix in the long term and was one that did not require reorienting the IGC's way of working in any essential way.

Hence I offered an amendment to the proposal but supported the idea of changing the process through the amendment process.

a.

* note i fully acknowledge that there are some, a minority at the time we voted on the original charter, that consider the use of a nomcom to select people inherently undemocratic and this controversial no matter what the decision.  I obviously disagree but do not want to make the nomcom process even more of a target by changing the rules on the fly - i.e. without the IGC's amendment process.____________________________________________________________
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