[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options
This is explanatory of Joop, HE decides, while he offered a service and
we didn't ask for a hijack!
HE decides nothing here without the approval of the panel or the full
membership INCLUDING the 220 he missed conveniently in his previous
straw poll.
I would appreciate you being a watch-dog Judith, but in the official
vote.
Abel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: espresso@e-scape.net [mailto:espresso@e-scape.net]
> Sent: 28 February 2003 14:10
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options
>
>
> At 16:44 +1300 2003/02/28, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >...
> >However the members list is not the exact voters' list.
> There are up to
> >25 addresses that bounce, so these people cannot be considered
> >"voters". There
> >is also the matter of the 169 "no messages please" members,
> who I will
> >include only after they opt-in. They have 3 days to do this and one
> >day has
> >passed. So far 16 have opted in.
> >
> >This process will result in a final voters' list (for this
> Poll!) that
> >I will send to the watchers.
> >
> >You have expressed reservations about such an opt-in and if
> Jan wants
> >me to use the full list too, this would put me under
> pressure to do as
> >you wish.
> >Shared responsibility. Walt is O.K. with the opt-in.
> >
> >But I must say that such a decision goes a beyond mere watching.
>
> This puzzles me a bit.
>
> For one thing, within any group or organization I've ever
> dealt with, members are members and they have the *right* to vote.
>
> Telling them when and where they can exercise that right
> isn't spam --it's the *duty* of the organization to tell
> them. Of course, a member can choose not to exercise the
> right, but it's not for us to say that because they chose not
> to get a mailing list or announcements of meetings of other
> organizations taking place in other countries, they should be
> disenfranchised.
>
> "Bounces" are a different matter. An organization can only
> use the contact information it was given by the member. It
> can't do anything about the members whose mailboxes are full
> or changed ISPs without notifying it. Bylaws, like laws,
> usually contain something to the effect that notices sent to
> the last address provided by the person will be considered to
> have been delivered. All we can really do about making sure
> people tell us about address changes is to make sure there's
> a reminder on the Web site and maybe a form for the purpose.
>
> For another, I don't really understand why it puts pressure
> on you or goes beyond a scrutineer's role to suggest that
> all members should be sent a notice, while your personal
> decision to send an opt-in message to the 169 on behalf of
> the group (which wasn't asked to approve this decision)
> should be seen as more legitimate or impartial.
>
> I don't know whether you want me to be a watcher or not.
> Thus far, only Jeff has formally objected to my serving as
> one; Richard, Vittorio and Bruce seem to want me to. I
> rather hope others will come out and say what they want as
> soon as possible so I can know where I stand on this task.
>
> Regards,
>
> Judyth
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> "Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
> ##########################################################
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de