[governance] Criterion for charter voting

[Mawaki Chango]

I do not take the idea of "gaming" IGC that seriously either (what do we
have to sell?) In fact, I don't think even Parminder (whom I believe used
that word first in this conversation) does. It's a generic argument, and the
fondamental idea is that there are rules -- notably membership rules -- when
you organize to certain extent. I do not vote in the country I'm living in,
arguably one of the greatest democracies on earth, because I've been here
for a few years, paying taxes and being a good citizen (even spending hours
following the political debates because I'm interested in the issues of the
republic.) Because there are rules that say I must meet a number of
conditions over a number of years, etc.

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?

That being said, if people want to change that rule to, say, a statement to
be made at a given time every year or something, that's ok by me. But note
that there are roughly 12 months from a moment in a year to the same time
the next year, during which people may join the list - what happens to them?
Or do people want to get rid of membership rule altogether, including for
votes such as charter amendments? We can follow any of those options, in my
view. I just tend to think that when people make a choice, it has
consequences.

Mawaki


On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:

>
> and why do you mean by this?
>
> is there some activity you think the group should be engaged in, that it is
> not?
> have you been doing outreach bringing in new people?
>
> a.
>
> On 29 Sep 2010, at 16:25, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
> > I don't mean to be curmudgeonly but I really would have preferred to see
> some of the energy and creativity that is going into ensuring the probity of
> the electoral system of this several handfuls of people most of whom know
> each other by sight over almost a decade, into broadening and deepening the
> group so that it has some broader legitimacy (and not just legalistically)
> as a voice for civil society in these most significant areas.
> >
> > Mike
>  > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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/20100929/ba8d4247/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