[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [atlarge-discuss] what most members want



At 23:45 +1300 2003/04/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 01:38 p.m. 1/04/2003, you [not me-JM] wrote:
>>This is no reflection on Joop's poll, but less than 10% of our
>>membership is
>>not a ringing endorsement of anything.  We need to have a real
>>election, in
>>which a significant number of our 1000+ members actually respond.
>
>That is not going to be easy, if the only place of activity is this
>trolled
>mailing list.
>An election of candidates that nobody knows jack about, for office
>that
>nobody knows the mandate of  ...., do you think it will get more
>participation than questions about structure that  are a lot easier to
>answer?

This is why I've been such a pain about setting realistic periods
for nominations, asking questions of candidates, and trying to
define some kind of mandate before proceeding to a vote.

It's also one of the reasons I believe an e-mail ballot is
preferable - one reaches more people fairly quickly and people
can respond more easily than by spending time looking at one
Web page after another. Some would disagree with me on that
but I think it is worth a try and could hardly get a lower
response rate than the recent poll.

>>Polls are educational, but cannot take the place of an actual
>>election when
>>setting policy for this group, unless a clear majority of our members
>>participate.
>
>*Participation* by 500 members is an unrealistic  expectation to put
>it
>mildly.
>Laying out structure is an attempt to bring order into chaos, now made
>by
>the 99 or so most interested members.

In my opinion, if we don't expect to get 500 active members,
we have no business trying to represent "Internet users" on
anything. Obviously, not everyone is prepared to be equally
active as the "core group" but if we purport to speak for
over 500 million and aim (as we did) at 100,000 members
shortly after incorporating, an organization where fewer than
500 bother to cast votes would deserve to be dismissed as
irrelevant to Internet governance.

>What the structure ends up to be is less important than *having* an
>undisputed structure (after 13 months of achieving nothing).
>Such structure could also have been proposed by 5 good willing
>bottom-up
>members, but 99 is a lot better.

More than 5 people here have proposed various structures,
some of them bottom-up and some not. The problem is that
we weren't encouraged to discuss those issues in an
organized way and then vote on whatever seemed best after
discussion. It is the Chair (of a Panel, working group or
even an open discussion with lots of participants) who
normally states the agenda and ensures that orderly
discussion leads to decision leads to action.

>*Policy setting* is done by the elected members who will be elected
>into
>that structure, each with specific mandate.

You're taking quite a bit for granted there. Policy-setting
is *not* necessarily something one hands over with a "you decide
for us" to those elected to sit on a body within the organization.
Bottom-up organizations do indeed have committees which do the
research and drafting but policy is actually set only when
the members have ratified a resolution to that effect.

Given that we've spent a year or so on "you decide for us" and
seen only that those elected were unable to work together in
any systematic way, I am sure in my own mind that we should
try a little "grassroots" democracy for a change.

>-Those who profess to believe in direct democracy pass the real test
>when
>they disagree with a result, but still respect it.-

As I said in my comments at the Polling Booth, some of the
questions took a good deal for granted about the kinds of
options this group should be choosing. As others have said
more than once, the poll was just a poll, not a referendum
binding on this group - after all, this group neither set
the questions nor informed all its members on the issues.

But I think we can use the results for the benefit of the
group by recognizing that we need to elect not only a
Panel but a Panel with a clear mandate to organize the work
and individual officers and directors with specific individual
responsibilities, who can keep the work progressing and
organize the rest of us into volunteer committees that
actually function.

A larger number of members expressed their preferences at
the Polling Booth than have done so on this list. Maybe this
group should consider conducting an official follow-up poll
where more members can cast votes on specific proposals
rather than general questions?

In any case, there seems to be a majority agreement here
that we want an election soon, and elections are meaningless
unless members are encouraged to nominate others or volunteer
for to fulfil particular mandates. I'm perfectly willing
to let Bruce, Jefsey and Eric propose the necessary mechanisms
and timetable but hope that if the election is to be soon,
the mandates will be discussed and the call for nominations
drafted even sooner.

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