[governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site

Sun Jan 9 17:37:54 EST 2011

> This seems to be a good time to deal with this issue, as there is no
pending vote to cause pressure. Concrete alternatives should be proposed to
find a consensus solution. Don, do you have any suggestions for a format you
would find acceptable?

Ginger my experience with this sort of general (lazy) consensus within
organisations is limited to my work with FOSS where consensus is deemed by
feedback (or lack thereof) to contributor and other change
requests/suggestions. Other orgs have more formal processes in place. Taking
the process to discussions here, it is self-evident that a number of
respondents express concern over recent changes meaning (in the context of
lazy consensus), that all changes should be reversed while impact, issues
and other alternatives are assessed. Whether this happens on this list or
another established for the purpose is again a matter for feedback of the
list. Certainly a time-frame for discussions should be proposed (I would
suggest 1 week is normally adequate) - The 'formal' process at the end of
this time would be to call for a simple online vote. This is a very simple
process that (I believe) evolved from development of the highly successful
Apache project.

The alternative to this approach is to formalise these membership issues;
probably by constitution - I am not proposing this.

Unfortunately Ian's post missed the most critical point under discussion
being the recent change (as newly entered on the web site) to membership
status - a number of respondents have now queried this - I propose this is
not the sort of change that should be applied without first seeking
consensus.

PS - I rather suspect that had due process been followed we all could have
saved a lot of wasted time on these discussions!

Don

From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 10 January 2011 9:04 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Don Cameron
Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site

I agree with Ian:

"Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a
positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not
alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database
rather than the need for one."

This seems to be a good time to deal with this issue, as there is no pending
vote to cause pressure. Concrete alternatives should be proposed to find a
consensus solution. Don, do you have any suggestions for a format you would
find acceptable?

Best, Ginger

On 1/9/2011 5:12 PM, Ian Peter wrote: 

Hi Don, you wrote

>There would appear to be a loan (sic) voice on this forum promoting both a
need for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be
changed.

Most of us past co ordinators at least would see a membership database as a
positive step forward and an easing of administrative work. Jeremy is not
alone here and the debate is probably more about the form of a database
rather than the need for one.

As well, many if not most of the lists subscribers would by now realise that
there is a need for the Charter to be revised  in several respects. But
that's an undertaking that is going to need a group to take action. (I am
not volunteering!)

So I dont think Jeremy is acting alone. The silence of the majority of
people on this list with the current discussions might have more to do with
having discussed these issues before, or perhaps being disinterested in
matters of administrative process and more interested in internet governance
issues. I don't think you can take relative silence to mean that everyone
agrees with the points you make.

Ian Peter

  _____  

From: Don Cameron <dg_cameron at bigpond.com>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Don Cameron <dg_cameron at bigpond.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:35:22 +1100
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, David Goldstein
<goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>
Subject: RE: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site

> Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who
voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for
whatever reason?

David this point is exactly my concern and the reason I entered this
conversation - We cannot claim professionalism unless we follow open and
proper process.

In several unfortunate personalisation's I and others have loosely been
described as 'lurkers'; 'internet old timers', and now in defining the right
to abstain from voting, as someone who 'doesn't want to vote' - yet none of
these negative descriptors address the very real issue of one persons
interpretation of an organisational Charter being used to discriminate
against membership. That's what this discussion is all about.

Power building - yes. Democratic - no. 

There would appear to be a loan voice on this forum promoting both a need
for a membership database as well as a need for the Charter to be changed. A
majority would appear to be against such change; yet change is happening
regardless.

The right of members for lazy consensus before the implementation of any
change is discarded for the sake of one person's interpretation of systems
expediency.

Is this a right and proper process?

Don      

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein
Sent: Sunday, 9 January 2011 11:52 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Don Cameron
Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site

This process is absurd Jeremy and makes a mockery any sort of a democracy.

It seems like empire building for the sake of empire building. Ten year old
kids couldn't make more of a mess of this in organising a school play club.
Actually, they'd do a much better job.

Additionally, if "the current membership list is on the basis of those who
voted in the last election," what happens to those who did not vote for
whatever reason?

David

  _____  

From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
To: Don Cameron <dg_cameron at bigpond.com>; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Sun, 9 January, 2011 10:39:56 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Phase 2 of improvements to the IGC Web site

On 09/01/2011, at 7:09 PM, Don Cameron wrote:

The charter further defines self modification (moves to change the charter)
as follows: "In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous
election will be deemed a member for amending the charter".

This certainly impacts on the right to vote for charter modifications,
however it otherwise has no impact on membership.

Well, so some say, but others (including myself) interpret it otherwise.
The current membership list is on the basis of those who voted in the last
election.  If we want to clarify this, we need to amend the charter.

In other news, I have properly fixed the LDAP errors that were preventing
people from editing their profiles to add extra optional profile information
(such as addresses and phone numbers), after they had registered.  Sorry
about that.

-- 

Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Empowering Tomorrow's Consumers 
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world

for four days of debate and discussion on the issues that matter most to
consumers. Register now!
http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress> 

Twitter #CICongress

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality> . Don't print
this email unless necessary.

  _____  

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 

Ginger (Virginia) Paque
IGCBP Online Coordinator
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ig 

The latest from Diplo...
http://igbook.diplomacy.edu  <http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/> is the online
companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on
IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110110/27124126/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t