[governance] Amending the charter was Re: [] Survey ….

Mon Feb 20 12:29:38 EST 2012

I do not think it appropriate for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one
person and turn it into an issue.  I think they should coordinate the views
of the community as they emerge.

The issues raised in this instance are not isolated and an in conjunction
to the views raised in numerous other threads this year. You can trust that
we have been observing these contributions which is the reason for
escalation to the Working Group. This is coordinating as far as I am
concerned.

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Would you please help me to understand the meaning of abv. 'co-cos', I
> used it as 'a group of same cause'
> And I also agree the limited part of responsibilities of Coordinators,
> however, at least to coordinate.
> Imran
> ------------------------------On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 9:09 PM PKT Izumi AIZU
> wrote:>Imran, Jeremy, Avri and all,>>I quite agree with what Avri wrote
> below.>The essence of co-co's role is, as stated in the>charter, to help
> the caucus reach the consensus.>>It is a sort of week leadership and should
> not put too much>proactive engagement, especially, in the substantive
> policy areas>within IGC. First role for us is to listen - and
> listen>carefully of diverse opinions.>>I hope this is in line with most of
> your thinking.>>best,>>izumi>>>2012/2/20 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:>>
> Hi,>>>> I think understand.>>>> And having done so before, I could have
> initiated a charter discussion on it.  In this case, I was just as happy to
> see it absorbed by Jeremy's group.>>>> Or someone else could have seen my
> complaint, especially if were to have been one of the group's taciturn
> members, and have taken it upon themselves to start such a process.>>>> I
> do not think it appropriate
>  for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one person and turn it into an
> issue.  I think they should coordinate the views of the community as they
> emerge.>>>> Now with a charter WG, it may incumbent on such as group, by
> its own view of its goals, to pick up such complaints and look at them.
>  And a co-co making sure they know of the issue does seem appropriate as
> long as it doesn't take on an official meaning and is just an act of
> coordination.>>>> avri>>>>>> On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:18, Imran Ahmed Shah
> wrote:>>>> Avri, my point of view was slightly different.>>>> ".. This
> charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10)
> members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of
> the IGC.">>>> Let me explain:>> For example as I remember, in your case,
> you submitted your complaint two times regarding the requirement of the
> modification of Charter due to conflict of opinions. First time, indicated
> the requirement of the
>  provisioning of voting "Non-of-Above" in the ballot. At that time, the
> voting member I agreed with your point of view and may be many other
> members also agree but there was no such mechanism to ask them that who
> agree with this point of view and if a strength of 10 members agree, pick
> your hands to volunteer for the voting and drafting the required amendment.
> Jeremy did like this but I do not remember that I see any request from you
> on the list.>>>> So, I want to say that if any member feels that there is
> requirement of the amendment, the coordinators (and/or other members) may
> either convince to objector or organize his objection and its proposed
> remedy through debate/discussion on the list or to initiate the call to
> arrange the members with same “co-cos for that matter”. If minimum 10
> members joins, yes, they can prepare a proper format of Objection, Proposed
> Modification and return the document for the initiation of a Voting to gain
> 2/3 majority
>  approval.>>>> This is again necessary because on the single list, (I
> believe) all of the mailing list members and/or voting members are a single
> group of volunteers and non-of-us have their own small grouping to discuss
> and plan common list matters, off the list before posting on the list. So,
> it is not possible to bring the likeminded individuals (for a matter/
> problem you have) by discussing off the list. There should be a proper
> ethical way of proposing conflicts or opinion and organizing, gathering or
> assembling group of likeminded/ concurring individuals to rephrase the
> charter and/or amendments.>>>> So, I just requesting for the arrangement to
> organize this process. And I hope that reading the above justification, you
> will agree with me.>>>> Thanks>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah>>>> From: Avri Doria <
> avri at acm.org>>> To: IGC <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> Sent: Monday,
> 20 February 2012, 18:30>> Subject: [governance] Amending the charter was
> Re: [] Survey
>  ….>>>>>> On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>>> > Thinking
> from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the
> positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter.>>>> All they can do is get
> a ballot established on the issue.  The change must still be approved by
> 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though
> we still have a questions about what it means to have voted)>>>> > Rather
> than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list /
> voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make
> the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows:>>
> >>>>> I disagree with this point.>>>> I think it is up to the proponents of
> a change to drum up support for their change.  I think they can do this on
> the open list.  I would also note that this is how it was done when the
> qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite
>  well.>>>> Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by
> the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9
> others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified
> members.>>>> In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me
> if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to
> review all amendments.  I do not think this is the case.  Any 10 people can
> submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be processed first by any
> group or by the co-cos for that matter.  There is certainly no problem with
> Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose
> amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a
> WG and its requests.  It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any
> self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a
> proposal for charter amendment.  For example, while I disagree with Imran's
>  suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him
> through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that
> the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members.>>>>
> avri>>>> ____________________________________________________________>> You
> received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>> For all other list information
> and functions, see:>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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>>>>>>>>>>>>
> ____________________________________________________________>> You received
> this message as a subscriber on the list:>>
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>
>  http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>> For all other list information
> and functions, see:>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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>>>>>>-- >
>  > Izumi Aizu <>>          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University,
> Tokyo>>           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,>
>                    Japan>                                 * * * * *>
>     < Writing the Future of the History >>
> www.anr.org>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
>
>

-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

Tweeter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Cell: +679 998 2851
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120221/ef68d5a0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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