[governance] ¿Quienes votaron?

[Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch]

Avri,

I think your concern is well placed. It is almost mathematical and it spirals into a "de necessario" monotonously decreasing subset of voters.

Alejandro Pisanty


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico



+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________________
Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Avri Doria [avri at acm.org]
Enviado el: domingo, 17 de febrero de 2013 12:04
Hasta: IGC
Asunto: Re: [governance] ¿Quienes votaron?

Hi,


On 17 Feb 2013, at 12:44, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> It would be very reasonable IMO to propose a charter amendment which
> replaces the 2/3 quorum with a 2/3 qualified majority of those
> answering the question for any particular charter amendment proposal,
> AND at the same time also removes the special category of "members for
> purposes of amending the charter" (i.e. charter amendment polls would
> be just like other votes in that each person who has been
> subscribed to the list for at least two months is given a voter
> account, and people affirm themselves to be caucus members as part of
> the process of participating in the poll.

I would argue against such a proposal as I beleive  it would give us control by those who cared about an issue.  In all cases we know that those who care about an issue are more likely to vote.  On things like charters, it it the continuity of the  group that counts, and thus I am quite happy with the fact that changing the charter is a challenge.

It might also allow for a lot of people to join the group and spend their first two months working on a change to the charter.  Though the contradiction of affirming support of the charter on a vote to change the charter is appealing in a weird sort of way.

I see no problem with the current rule.  I find fault with myself for not having paid attention to how long the vote would be or for having neglected to be a pest and asking the coordinator's how the vote was going and for not reminding people to vote from time to time.

We have succeeded in amending the charter before, we know it is possible. So this time, i see  it as a lesson, not a reason to change the charter.

avri



-------------- 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