[governance] Criterion for charter voting

Wed Sep 29 15:42:28 EDT 2010

If we intend to be a one person one vote equal democracy  (and the
charter does invoke equality in a strong way, lending strength to this
approach) then there's really no such thing as "gaming", just like 18
year olds who just recently registered to vote and happen to decide an
election by their numbers have not really gamed anything. The feelings
of the elders are understandable, but they are not democratically
sound, they rely instead on something akin to a two tier society, one
of the more respected and powerful "elders" and the lower class
apprentices or something like that.

I'm not going to be a spoil sport or anything, but I do think these
are important governance matters for us to take reasonably seriously
if we are to recommend governance solutions to others...

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 9/29/10, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree that it could be considered cynical, though i did not mean it
> cynically.
>
> And I agree that it hinges on interpretations, especially of "most currently
> available voters list" and "everyone who voted in the previous election".
> And that it is a close call.
>
> I find myself wavering on this and seeing 2 sides, maybe too much coffee
> now. Parminder is right is that we might be opening a gaming hole.  E.g next
> year 3 months before the election, a bunch of people could join the list in
> time for coordinator voting rights, with the real intent of presenting a
> charter amendment.  Would this serve as a precedent that this was ok.
>
> I am so glad that we have an appeals mechanism whereby if enough people (5)
> think that the current process is wrong, it can be put to review.
>
> Also, I must admit, as a process geek, to being fascinated by us have a
> problem of a race condition*  in the charter.  I see them in computer
> sceince all the time, but this is my first experience of one in a charter
> and has taught me stuff.
>
> a.
>
> *Race condition:
>
> Race conditions arise in software when separate processes or threads of
> execution depend on some shared state. Operations upon shared states are
> critical sections that must be mutually exclusive in order to avoid harmful
> collision between processes or threads that share those states.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_condition)
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 09:28, parminder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday 29 September 2010 06:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Interesting point.
>>>
>>> Having just voted in an election, one could argue that the conditions of
>>> the charter had been met.  Interesting cascade.
>>>
>>> And on the spirit, this happened so quickly, within the two month margin
>>> for voting on an election, we can be confident no one joined the mailing
>>> list to mess with the charter.
>>>
>>> So we might have both letter and spirit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Avri
>>
>>  The letter of the corresponding text of the charter, in my view, is about
>> an eligible voter for a charter amendment actually having voted in the
>> last election, which I read as something which is meant to be prior to
>> starting the process of charter amendment, and not an ongoing,
>> un-concluded voting process, in which the voter participates a few seconds
>> prior to her/his charter amendment vote. That simply makes no sense, and I
>> would say is a rather cynical way of reading such an important document as
>> the IGC's charter.
>>
>> And the spirit of the referred text is that when one votes for a charter
>> amendment one may not decide just on instinct (or with malafide intention
>> as part of a capture process) to be a part of the group's core
>> self-defining process, but has some sustained involvement with the
>> processes of the group which gives her/ him a right to be part of such
>> collective self-definition and determination (and, on the other hand,
>> stands as some degree of check against an orchestrated capture process).
>>
>> In the present case, if one was already subscribed to the list for 2
>> months, she/he could have chosen to participate in charter amendment
>> without having had, independently (and this is the key point),
>> participated in an earlier election, which is the intent of the charter.
>> One may just do the coordinator vote, because that is the technical
>> necessity to go to the charter amendment vote, with ones principal intent
>> focused on charter amendment vote . The charter's express and specific
>> requirement of previous commitment and involvement for casting a charter
>> amendment vote is obviously not met in this case.
>>
>> This particular amendment is for a minor issue, so it really doesnt matter
>> that much either way. However, we have to be clear about protecting our
>> Charter's voting processes, especially charter amendment voting processes.
>> A bad precedent allowed to pass becomes the law.
>>
>>
>> Parminder
>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 08:40, Paul Lehto wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/29/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Paul, at this point the issue is not about one view against another,
>>>>> but
>>>>> the letter of the charter of the IGC, which clearly has a different
>>>>> eligibility criterion for voting in a charter amendment than any other
>>>>> voting. It states that
>>>>>
>>>>>    "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous
>>>>>    election will be deemed a member for amending the charter."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I understand that's the language.  But in order to conclude that
>>>> someone's vote is taken away, the language must be clear and
>>>> unequivocal.  Here, those who voted in the previous election are
>>>> "deemed" members - it's automatic so to speak.  There is no express
>>>> preclusion of others who can establish membership through means not
>>>> automatic in nature.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Parminder for your courtesy and respect regarding me and the
>>>> letter and spirit of the law.  The letter and the spirit are why I
>>>> interpret it in the manner above, one should greatly hesitate and put
>>>> the burden of specificity on an interpretation that would result in
>>>> the denial of a voting right.  If a Charter intended for a more
>>>> restricted class of Charter voters, it would typically (at least if
>>>> well drafted) state at the end of the sentence above something like
>>>> "and no others shall be deemed qualified voters by any means for the
>>>> purpose of amending the Charter."
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>>>> P.O. Box 1
>>>> Ishpeming, MI  49849
>>>>
>>>> lehto.paul at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> 906-204-2334
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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