[governance] IMPORTANT: 10 members required to approve a

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I figure this can be left to the co-coorodinators.  we choose them to be reasonable.

And if enough of us think they behaved unreasonably we can pounce on them on the list and if necessary in appeal.  While it still has not been used, I feel the appeals mechanisms is a good deterrent to precipitous and unreasonable behavior.

if we define each of these things to its minutia we will have a very long set of rules and procedures and need a staff to start creating complicated pictorial process explanations and freaky straightjacket forms (oh no, that was a nightmare from my other avocation, never mind)

One think I disagree with Jeremy on:

> Thanks everyone, we now have enough support to put this amendment to a vote, which I'll do in conjunction with the coordinator ballot as soon as I have the last remaining candidate's statement and have compiled the latest voter list.  No need for more responses until then.

Well actually now that it is up for a vote, it is reasonable that we discuss it to the extent that people will feel informed when voting for or against it.   You have you 10 champions for the idea.  But approving an amendment takes a fair number of voters.  I.e. 2/3 of those who are currently deemed as members based on the previous vote.  Getting 2/3 is never a shoe in.

So people asking questions about why and whether seems a good idea to me.

Of course I am sure Jeremy did not really mean that we should stop talking about, it just read that way to me.  so i pounced.


a.




On 27 Sep 2010, at 06:17, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> I agree if we can establish reasonable fixed limits to "whenever possible, one month...". What is the minimal limit: one day?? A few hours (sorry, stressing the argument...)???
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 09/26/2010 11:53 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 27/09/2010, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Klein wrote:
>> 
>>> I support the text from Jeremy with Avri's modification.
>> 
>> Of the ten members needed to put this minor change to a vote, we now have:
>> 
>> Jeremy
>> Avri
>> Norbert
>> Tijani
>> Izumi
>> Lee
>> Janna
>> ...?
>> ...
>> ...
>> 
>> The changes again, with additions in square brackets:
>> 
>> 1. Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided.
>> 
>> [Whenever possible,] one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates
>> 
>> 8. Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made.  [However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions.]
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso
> CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
> ====================================
> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
> ====================================
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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