[atlarge-discuss] Membership Verification

[Jan Siren <sirenj@earthlink.net>]

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> At 10:22 a.m. 28/04/2003, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

...

> >I disagree.  I think we should settle on several alternatives but allow
> >for the possibility that the panel may have to make the odd discretionary
> >decision in extremely exceptional cases.
>
> Sotiris,
>
> "We should settle" is placing the cart before the horse.
> If "we" is something other than elected representatives, we (all) have a
> problem. Especially if no election is allowed to proceed before "we" have
> settled on all the alternative verification methods.
> Our current voters list does not appear to suffer from a significant number
> of fraudulent entries.
> It is good enough for the moment.
>
> After the members elect the needed officers, *they* can scrutinize the list
> further and challenge the doubtful entries.
>

I concur on both your points: that no one, prior to elections, is in a
position to impose arbitrarily such a verification requirement; and that the
elected officers will be the appropriate persons to perform the list scrub.

Which is not to say that those officers should not also consider all
verification proposals that have been made to date, looking toward
maintaining the integrity of the membership roll as the organization
grows.


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