[governance] Formal Objection to consensus call

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

+1 added to which, believe me, it doesn't pay to intervene much too often when interacting directly with heads of state.  Get quoted by a Brazilian newspaper that her aides can send her a copy of and you achieve your purpose. Once you agree on the text.

--srs (iPad)

> On 13-Oct-2013, at 19:02, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Co-ordinators,
> 
> I don't know what makes an objection formal, but at this point I object to the entire process you are rushing through.
> 
> I beleive:
> 
> - you do not have consensus on sending a letter
> - you do not  have agreement on wording of a letter.
> 
> I do not know what you mean by a formal objection - do you mean I have to start an appeals team process.  If necessary I will.  You are using silence much too much, especially when fewer the 10% of the membership are participating and the length of time you give is too short.  In fact, how many people really want this thing.  To have a hand full of people who push something hard on a mostly apathetic group is NOT consensus - it is an abuse of that term.
> 
> The establishing of a weekend deadline of less that a day with no time for people to react is completely objectionable.
> 
> So to be clear  I still object to the wording and thus object to sending any letter until the wording is corrected.
> 
>   - it does not address both leaders.  I already gave a recommendations for how it was to be reworded - it has to address both of the leaders equally with their appropriate honorific
> 
>   - it contains "Brazil has an exemplary record of genuine civil society partnerships with regard to many global as well as domestic issues, and we look forward to working with Brazil on this current initiative."  which needs to be dropped  We do not have enough knowledge, we do not consensus of this statement, and it is irrelevant to the letter.
> 
> Until such time as the wording is agreeable, I FORMALLY OBJECT to the sending/signing of this letter.  The idea of the co-coordinators taking it upon themselves to define a consensus in the way they are doing so is completely unacceptable.
> 
> 
> 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

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