[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Ian Peter]

Seeing this problem has been raised, I think there are a few things that are
clear .

Firstly, there are no grounds for a challenge to the co coordinator
election. It is completely valid even if there are problems with the
subsequent charter amendment vote. So we do not need to do that again.

Re the charter amendment ­ Jeremy has heard the various calls and must make
a decision on how to proceed and his grounds for doing so ­ perhaps in
conjunction with both Ginger as outgoing coordinator and the newly elected
coordinator as well, but that I think is Jeremy¹s call. Options would seem
to include

1. separating the voters in some way to count only valid votes and voters
for the charter amendment. That would be nice if it could be done
2. Declaring the vote valid and reasons for doing so ­ in which case it
would stand unless an appeal was mounted.
3. Declaring the vote invalid or at least doubtful, and adopting the earlier
Parminder suggestion of using the same Nomcom pool but selecting two
different nomcoms which avoids the problem.

And of course declaring the vote valid would require that the 2/3 of members
had voted for it ­ not just 2/3 of the members who bothered to vote. It¹s a
high mark to reach as we found in the last charter amendment.

In this respect I recently forwarded to Jeremy a copy of the report on the
previous charter amendment and the reasoning adopted in declaring a valid
member vote on that occasion. That gives some sort of precedent that may or
may not need to be followed (I could not find it on the website but I think
it would be in the email archives)

I hope we can find a smooth and easy way forward. Process is important, but
it is at least equally important that we be functional and able to act to
meet our challenges, especially when the will of the membership is clear.

Ian Peter






From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:40:25 +0530
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Criterion for charter voting

Yes, Izumi, I completely agree that the problems, if there are any,
associated with the charter amendment part of the process should not be
allowed to interfere with, and shadow over, the more important part on
voting in our new co-coordinator.

The voting for the new co-coordinator should go on and all should
participate enthusiastically, because, whatever gets decided, this is how we
show our continued commitment to the the IGC, and its relevance to the
changes in the world that we want to see, and possibly help bring about...

Parminder 

On Wednesday 29 September 2010 10:27 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>  
> Dear Parminder and all,
> 
> Thank you for raising this important issue and providing inputs.
> 
> Though I have my own opinion, being a candidate for a co-coordinator,
> I like to refrain from putting them here now, and like to follow whatever
> outcome we reach.
> 
> I am afraid that my saying something on charter amendment
> may affect on the co-coordinator election or vice versa in an
> inappropriate manner.
> 
> This might be the case of "Race condition"Avri put.
> Thank you for your understanding and continuing efforts,
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 2010/9/30 Fearghas McKay <fm-lists at st-kilda.org>
> <mailto:fm-lists at st-kilda.org> :
>   
>  
>>  
>> But the election has not completed so for new voters you haven't voted in
>> the last election, only the current running one.
>> 
>> The whole election process was meant to be reviewed but it didn't seem to
>> make it to the top of our todo lists. I think it does need to be revisited
>> soon both for some version of Proportional Representation and procedural
>> tightening up.
>>     f
>> 
>> On 29 Sep 2010, at 14:32, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:gpaque at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 
>> I don't know if I should weigh in, being co-coordinator, but not running the
>> election, but this is exactly what I think: first I voted in the election,
>> then I voted on the charter.
>> 
>> On 9/29/2010 8:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100930/2f11a68e/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