[governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees

[David Cake]

On 27 Dec 2013, at 4:54 pm, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> David, 
> 
> The sequence of activities as I understand them has been

	Sure, but I just want to make it clear that I responded to a specific series of suggestions about the specific issue of desirable nominating criteria. You may certainly infer if you wish that that discussion must by its context be assumed to be about the entirety of the committee selection process, and in particular the role of the CI list, but that wasn't my assumption. I personally think that the criteria I objected too remain bad ideas regardless of the context, or whether they advantage or disadvantage any particular group in this or another context. 
	
> 1. the creation of the CS "coordinating committee"--which was drawn from
> certain CS groupings but not others... I have two problems with this, first
> that the Best Bits coordinating group, a founding member of the CS CC,
> itself is self-selected without due procedures or transparency;  

	While the initial message best bits, this discussion seems to be on the governance list only. If your issue is with BB, it might be best discussed there. 
	I personally have no strong feelings about the BB group, and have only recently joined that list - as should be clear, while I am happy to participate in IGC processes (and of course just served on the IGC MAG NomCom) most of my participation in broader civil society networks is via NCSG. 

> secondly
> the CS coordinating committee did not appear to have any criteria for who
> should be included in this grouping, and one moreover where I have made
> several approaches on behalf of the Community Informatics network to be
> included with no useful response (see my correspondence with Ian Peter and
> Jeremy Malcolm in this regard. 

	And while I disagree with some of your assertions, I think your position deserves some consideration.  It remains, however, not really addressing the points I raised, which were about selection criteria more generally. 	I still personally think that the suggested idea by Guru, that we do NOT have the ability to cooperate with other civil society organisations as a criteria for representatives, remains a bad idea no matter what organisation it might apply too, while you have referred to that criteria disparagingly as the ability to 'play nice', so it appears that, regardless of the legitimacy of process, we have disagreements about what makes a good representative no matter how they are selected. 
	

> 2. this "coordinating committee" without any evident larger consultation
> pulled some criteria out of the air for making its nominations for various
> CS positions within the Brazil committee structure evidently designed
> specifically to exclude the Community Informatics network.

	No matter the process of arriving at them, we can still judge whether they are good or bad. And as discussing the value of various suggested selection criteria is the only contribution I have made to the debate, I remain confused as to why you wish to lecture me about the general process (about which I have made few comments) while not addressing my specific criticisms. 
	
> 3. without any evident transparent or accountable process it proceeded to
> make nominations in these regards and forward them to responsible parties.

	
> 
> I'm not sure what happens when you pile an illegitimate process onto an
> illegitimate process on top of a further illegitimate process but to my mind
> the result is not one that any reasonable person should find acceptable
> under any circumstances.

	So, you believe the CS CC selection criteria for participation in the Brazil committees are bad, because it is is an illegitimate process? Or are bad criteria, independent of the legitimacy of the process? But you have suggested that the CI group be included in this process, on two separate criteria (both as a CS group, and as an academic group). So my understanding of your position is that  either the process is illegitimate, but would have been if the CI group was included, in which case the process would have gained some legitimately? Or that the process is illegitimate, but you wish to participate anyway? Or the Brazil process is not necessarily illegitimate, it is only some parts of the process (the CS CC committee, or just parts of it such as BB and IGC?) that are illegitimate, and you intend the CI group to bypass those processes and apply to 1net etc directly? 
	And do you believe that the CS representative process would have become legitimate if it had included your CI group as one of those, or included the selection criteria you suggested? Or is it just a matter of the degree of illegitimacy? 
	I'm sorry if that sounds an unnecessarily dismissive or pejorative characterisation of your views - I am genuinely confused as to what alternative process you believe would have been appropriate, legitimate, and expedient. I merely suggested that regardless of the process by which they were arrived at, I thought some of the changes to the selection criteria were a bad idea. 

> I know nothing about NCSG and can't comment on that... I'm quite familiar
> with the IGC which, though it had significant faults, the lack of legitimate
> processes was not one of them...

	Let me assure you that in NCSG we think about process a lot, and generally rely on elections or open elections for most office bearers, but there are times when a more ad hoc process is forced by circumstances, in which case we allow our elected representatives to come up with as legitimate a process as expediency allows (making such expedient decisions is, after all, one of the reasons we elected them).  I'm certainly happy with those who have been chosen to represent NCSG so far. 
	(I am currently an elected representative of the NCSG only for roles within ICANN, so I am not claiming any right to speak on their behalf regarding broader issues myself)

> I know little about the internal activities
> of either Diplo or APC although I have had very significant respect for
> Diplo 

	I know little about eithers internal processes, but have significant respect for both. 

> (and honestly I'm a bit tired of all this and will withdraw from future
> discussion on these matters

	Well, me too, but in part because my contributions seem to have been met by messages that don't directly address my arguments, but vociferously raise different ones, Whether or not the process by which the selection criteria were decided should not make bad ideas good ones, nor good ones bad - we can judge the criteria independently from the process, surely? 

> as the CI network works towards making its own
> nomination process and ultimately nominations. 

	I wish the CI network all the best. I've recently joined the CI list (I only heard of it for the first time a few weeks ago, but I have some relevant academic interests, primarily in disability issues), and I will watch its processes with interest. 

	Cheers

		David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131228/d66938b9/attachment.sig>
-------------- 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