[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] "Common Sense" Re: MOTION! Panel Members! Speak Out NOW!
At 04:38 PM 3/31/2003 -0800, Bruce Young [see history below] called for a
vote of the panel on an agreement reached with Jan Siren and Judyth
Mermelstein based on their [Judyth and Jan's] stipulation calling for such
a vote. -- Sensible
Non-panel members comment. -- Sensible
Non-panel members vote. -- Nonsense
Former panel member asserts legitimacy of panel's actions while a member
while at the same time decrying such legitimacy under the same rules since
his resignation. -- Nonsense
Constituted under the rules of the time and still extant, the panel that
remains is THE panel. -- Sensible
The panel is NOT the panel. -- Nonsense
The panelists who remain are failing the organization and dooming it, and
must abdicate their organizational responsibilities and rights in that
capacity. -- Nonsense.
The abdicating panelists advanced the purposes of the organization. -- Nonsense
The abdicating panelists are to be thanked while the remaining panelists
are to be excoriated. -- Nonsense
The current panel is de facto or *politically* illegitimate. -- Nonsense
/s/ Joey Bordo/Borda
Tuesday, April 01, 2003 * 12:35 PM EST USA
HISTORY: "MOTION! Panel Members! Speak Out NOW!" thread history:
At 04:38 PM 3/31/2003 -0800, email@example.com wrote in
"MOTION! Panel Members! Speak Out NOW!":
Judyth Mermelstein wrote:
| On receipt of a Panel motion to that effect, I will very happily
| send all files I received from Vittorio to Jefsey, Bruce and
| Eric - in their identity as our remaining Panel - so that they
| can organize whatever election process and polling they
| *collectively agree* is appropriate.
Jan Siren wrote
| My owm intentions essentially parallel Judyth's with the
| following variation:
| As time allows, I have been performing some integrity checks
| against the
| files (and requesting additional information from the sources
| as needed) so
| that, when a disposition is eventually made, a level of
| certification will
| accompany them.
Based on the above statements, I make the following Panel Motion:
1. Judyth and Jan should release the membership list to all existing Panel
members. As of this message, that would be myself, Jefsey Morfin and Eric
Dierker. Others who feel they should be included should also reply.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Abstain
2. If the above motion passes, the panel should IMMEDIATELY begin
discussions to lock down timing and procedures for nominations from the
membership, dates for conducting the election, and systems/processes used to
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Abstain
At 08:00 PM 3/31/2003 -0600, Hugh Blair wrote:
> Based on the above statements, I make the following Panel Motion:
> 1. Judyth and Jan should release the membership list to all
> existing Panel members. As of this message, that would be myself,
> Jefsey Morfin and Eric Dierker. Others who feel they should be included
> should also reply.
> [ ] Yes
> [ X ] No
> [ ] Abstain
> 2. If the above motion passes, the panel should IMMEDIATELY begin
> discussions to lock down timing and procedures for nominations from the
> membership, dates for conducting the election, and systems/processes
> used to conduct it.
> [ ] Yes
> [ X ] No
> [ ] Abstain
What panel? There is only a _dead_ panel. Put this motion to the
membership if you want, but to have your clique vote for themselves,
that's just wrong. Wanted or not, here's my vote.
At 08:29 PM 3/31/2003 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
For the record, sice Jefsey seconded it. Want to chime in there, Eric?!
Portland, Oregon USA
At 08:49 PM 4/1/2003 +1200, DPF wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:38:09 -0800, <email@example.com> wrote:
>1. Judyth and Jan should release the membership list to all existing Panel
>members. As of this message, that would be myself, Jefsey Morfin and Eric
>Dierker. Others who feel they should be included should also reply.
>[ ] Yes
>[X ] No
>[ ] Abstain
I don't accept that if 90% of a panel resigns that the person who came
20th (basically bottom) in an election should become a panel member
and with the remaining two members have any authority. The panel is
inquorate by any normal definition of being less than half or even
quarter of its membership.
The last legitimate elected officer gave the lists to two watchdogs to
run the next election. An online informal poll of list members
confirmed that they should use that list to run an election.
Frankly I'm staggered that the two remaining panelists should spend so
much time demanding their rights when they are part of the panel that
so badly failed icannatlarge.org and has probably doomed it. With all
respect if I were them I'd be standing aside.
At 11:42 AM 4/1/2003 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:38:09 -0800, you wrote:
>Based on the above statements, I make the following Panel Motion:
Bruce, I once again stress that the last motion the panel approved
under my chairmanship was to have a new election as soon as possible.
It was approved with your support and with Jefsey's support, so I
really can't understand why we can't simply have new elections and
implement that motion. You may debate about whether the current panel
is legally legitimate or not - you may debate endlessly, in fact,
since we don't have rules yet - but there's no reasonable doubt about
the fact that this panel is *politically* illegitimate.
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
At 04:00 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Are you trying to destroy any forward progress so that you will do better
in your new position?
At 04:33 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
Vittorio and all fellow members,
For a pleasant change I must agree with Vittorio here. The Ex-Panel
is no longer legitimate and hasn't been for some time. New Elections
are required. An election process that preserves the privacy of the
members that shall decide to vote is required.