Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 11:40:47 +0100, Vittorio Bertola
<vb@bertola.eu.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:27:16 +1300, you wrote:
>
>>>Now if only the rest of the current Panel would conscientiously follow suit, we
>>>can turn this thing around and have some chance at progressing this
>>>organization.
>>
>>I don't want all or even most of the panel to resign necessarily.  I
>>just want them to start producing results.
>
>I am not sure about what I should do. I have been spending as much
>time as I could in December to keep our website minimally updated, to
>try to restart discussion on bylaws, and to find volunteers to lead
>this and other tasks (as I cannot manage to be Chair, write the Bylaws
>and be the webmaster alone).

Agreed.

>For example, I could call a panel vote on the mission statement any
>time, and I was in fact going to do it, but what would it be for if
>there has not been any feedback or discussion on the working group
>that was created to do so? Or we could have the vote on where we
>should head, ie whether we should join the RALO process (and how much)
>or not, but again, I only heard Richard and Jefsey on it. And I don't
>think it's the case that I decide things alone or almost alone.

I think as Chair you need to set deadlines for responses on key
issues.

Prioritise the three or four things which need to be decided to make
progress, work with panelists and others to canvass options, but let
people know there is a deadline for responses and at that deadline
then put together a ballot which will fairly give the members two or
more options to vote on.

Look we could spend two years on a mission statement.  In fact we have
already spent eight months.  Even after two years there would be
people who say that not all the options are on the table and/or that
something else needs to be done first.  However you have to balance up
progress vs universal happiness and will be pleasantly surprised that
the vast majority of the membership will be delighted to have some
stuff to vote on.

Very few people are seeking 100% agreement with what an organisation
does.  In fact a former NZ Prime Minister said that even he only
agreed with 80% of what his Government did.  Most people will be happy
that progress is being made even if they don't agree with every single
detail.

But if no progress is made on anything substantial, then apathy and
loss of members will be a result.  The roster of those who still
participate in discussions seem to now be below 20 and the voting
roster may have shrunk to under 100 which is a great pity.

People didn't join this organisation to help build it.  Very few
people are like me and actually like building organisations.  People
joined so this would exist as a vehicle through which they could have
a voice.  Every month we spend on "building" is a month missed on
being active - lobbying on policy, arranging forums, online petitions
etc etc - hey that's certainly what I would rather do than debate
bylaws.

>Personally, I think that there's no point in getting even more weeks
>of instability by having the panel resign and voting new people in,
>and that things could be better if you and other interested people
>joined wg-bylaws and if all panel members could at least spare some
>time to ratify the results.

I am on wg-bylaws.  I think the bylaws put together by Michael Geist
are fine (don't agree 100% with them but happy enough overall) and
think that we should put them to a vote after we vote on our
fundamental mission statement.

>But again, the Chair is here mostly to follow the membership's
>suggestions.

The membership doesn't have a united voice and waiting for 100%
agreement from the members will never happen.  The members want the
panel to put some options together for them to vote on, and then to
get on with the real issues of fostering online democracy etc

My suggestion for the 2c worth is to take the proposals put together
by Judith and Richard and use them to put together a ballot which will
allow members to vote on our fundamental direction.  I wouldn't make
it a huge 5 page 20+ question ballot which will just lead to a low
voter turnout but a single question with 2 - 4 options framed in a
neutral way.  

Once we have had the vote on fundamental direction or mission
statement, then give wg-bylaws say three weeks to come up with a
consensus set of bylaws, otherwise take the existing five proposed
sets and move to a members vote on the five proposals to decide which
is the preferred one.

DPF
--
E-mail: david@farrar.com
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de