[governance] Some thoughts on nomination processes

[parminder]

On Monday 13 January 2014 04:04 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote:
> For over twenty years I've been "channel operator" on various chat 
> channels. I always found my role to be akin to that of a janitor, 
> someone who serves a community without demanding much in return.
>
> There was always one policy I followed when it came to selecting 
> someone to become fellow operator: "s/he who asks for it will never 
> get it."

  On this criterion, most of all, 1Net should have been denied the 
gatekeeping role to Brazilian meeting that has been bestowed to it. It 
not only consistently asked for this role but virtually snatched it out 
of what appears to be unwilling hands.

1Net first made a unilateral announcement that it had this role (Adiel's 
email to 1Net list on Nov 18) which is strange since it is the role 
giver and not the role taker who usually makes such an announcement, and 
evidently the Brazilian organising committee had said nothing of this kind.

That the Brazilian organising committee had given 1Net no such role was 
evident from the Nov 26th formal announcement of the Brazil meeting. 
This fact was confirmed by an email to these lists on Nov 27 by Carlos, 
who attended the organising committee meeting. Carlos was responding to 
direct question by Anriette who asked and I quote

"Does this mean that we no longer need to address our concerns about 
civil society participation to 1net but that rather we can 
engageconstructively with CGI.br?

To which Carlos responded

"Yes. We must ensure that all CS movements, groups and structures 
havedirect access to the organizing commission, no need to use a single 
conduit. "

I dont know how this situation got fully reversed by end Dec when 1Net 
suddenly got thrusted into the gatekeeping role. One can only speculate 
that a lot of arm twisting and political deal making would have gone in 
there.

But surely, you can hardly say that 1Net was the good boy who never 
asked for the role, as a reward for which it was given that role...

>
> Why? Simply because those who want the spot don't want it for the work 
> and service to others, but because it would make them appear "more 
> powerful", "more respectful", "more important". Times and again when 
> the policy was not followed, experience has shown and reconfirmed that 
> deviating from it leads to bad results.

Would you now denounce 1Net on this criterion.

Or does your advice only extend to those who may represent marginalised 
groups, with highly under resourced organisational capacities , and not 
to the powerful and highly well organised ones..

parminder
>
> Instead, those whom I asked to become fellow 'ops' were those who 
> worked silently and diligently to create harmony, to develop sensical 
> common positions, those who had service to the community at their 
> heart and who would refuse the offer at first for fear of not being 
> able to fulfill the position of trust to the best interest of their 
> community.
>
> Perhaps this example could inform also those in and around this 
> community in setting and in accepting the selection criteria and 
> nomination processes.
>
> Of course, you are perfectly free to completely ignore this suggestion 
> or to start a "shitstorm" over this. ;-)
>
> Peter
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140113/aa887b58/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