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

[michael gurstein]

Hi David,

Thanks for your comments, however, as I said in my earlier email I'm rather
tired of this general discussion (not specifically with the discussion with
you) as it doesn't lead to any useable outcomes; and given the circumstances
my opinions on existing or possible criteria for selection by (let's brand
it)  "Coordinating Committee CS" (CC:CS)) doesn't really matter anymore (if
it ever did)... Community Informatics insofar as it is active in the IG CS
space will have its processes and criteria and CC:CS can use whatever
criteria and processes that it chooses.

Since you've joined the Community Informatics list (welcome!) you know that
we've initiated some significant (nomination and other) processes there
which I'm heavily involved in moving forward and which are taking most of my
available time and attention and where I do see some productive outcomes.

All the best and I look forward to your contributing and becoming part of
the CI community.  Although we've had spurts of activity in the disability
area in the past and I know a number of CI folks are working with this as
their focus we haven't really had any specific activities in that area
recently. It is something that I think we/CI should be more active in as we
move forward particularly of course focusing on (marginalized and other)
communities as the framework and target for ICTs and support for the
disabled.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:27 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for
nominations to Brazil meeting committees


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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
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