RE: [atlarge-discuss] Update on Status of affairs per 6 July 2003

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Attacking anyone is not my signature, certainly not if they are willing
to do work needed to be done.
Sharp debate however is something that might be misread by others as an
attack, but is just that.

In the case of the WG-By-laws you misread the motion and were jumping
the gun, which leads to defense of people promoting that motion (which
does not include me).

In sharp contrast is your personal attack below, lacking any grounds and
consisting of loose accusations. That is not debate but "bullying" which
might work on some, but has absolutely no influence on me.

The panel's activities are wide open, not only is the archive for our
only means of communication open for all and is every post to our list
immediately archived, we also send out status reports on our actions
with great possible detail.
If by opening up our activities mean that every member gets a vote on
the panel we might as well turn the panel over to the membership and
stop our work. The panel does what the panel does, trying to steer this
organization towards being a real oragnization that can make a
difference in the internet-governance.
We do not fill any comm. If you read our archives well you will see that
I have posted more then once that I feel that panelmember participation
on ANY comm should be limited to 2 members and that never a panelmember
should chair a comm. Those opinions though not shared by all
panelmembers are what I stand for and will fight for time and time
again.

For the comms so far this has worked out, webcomm has 2 members and not
the chair, the soon to be verification-comm has 2 members and so it
should be for all. 
The WG By-Laws is just that, a Work Group! Not a discussion ending comm,
it will be open to all who want to participate and definitely not the
end all to other attempts going on to reach the status of incorporation
and creation of by-laws.
It will and should be open to all.

If you read my posts as slurs against you then that is sad, they are
just sharp obersvations and replies to your posts.
Upon which you base your idea that I do not respect time-zones I do not
know, though you are right, I live in the UK and am absolutely not
intending to only post on hours the USA is awake, the posters from the
Far and Middle East as well as EU and "down-under" have the same rights
as Americans on this list, that it makes me post at times you are not
around however is not true. I am awake from (usually) 8 am till 4 am and
often later, which makes me comply with most time-zones around the
world, checking my posts and the time they are send should help you with
that conclusion.

No vote has been rushed, please point out one that was, and do keep in
mind that the webmaster vote was already done when I corrected my
earlier mistake of adding you to the team. 

As for the motion of no confidence in Sebastian Klein;

It should be clear to all that panelmembers that are active agree with
the view that non-active members should be removed.
However...

A vote of no confidence is the only means to do such a thing and an
inactive panelmember is not the only reason such a vote can be used.
While using such a tool one should first and foremost protect the
democracy that is the base for the organization, meaning that rules
should be established if not in place for such a procedure.
People repeating they want such a vote only count once in the total vote
count and if the matter is not done according to certain rules, written
or not, total anarchy is the result and again we will be faced with a
dead donkey for an organization.

The correct way to handle this in my opinion should be: a member
proposes a motion of no-confidence in either a specific panelmember or
the entire panel. Then with sufficient support (15? 20? 25? Members)(for
sufficient use these numbers: approx 1000 members, 240+ voted in last
election and add in to this equasion the prevention of capture, or
constant voting on motions of this kind of someone does not agree with
what the panel or one of it's member does, it can then be used as a tool
for delaying a lot of work) the motion is accepted and the panel
organizes the vote in the shortest possible time-frame.

This is my opinion, but I am sure that many will agree that a democracy
not only should leave tools in the hands of the members but should also
safeguard its existence against disruption and capture.

Those actively participating on this list is not a measure to go by,
many are silent for long times to only write when they feel they can
contribute, and only 20+ % of the members is on this list (left I should
say) in the first place.

Really caring and being active is a good thing, but it does not allow
you to speak for a "silent" majority. Serving office, panel or comm is
"serving" no "ruling".


Kind regards

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Holt [mailto:jefftttt@txucom.net] 
> Sent: 07 July 2003 06:46
> To: abel@able-towers.com
> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Update on Status of affairs 
> per 6 July 2003
> 
> 
> Abel,
> 
> Yes, I have some time to spare and each of those Committees 
> will get rigorous attention I assure you.  It is hardly 
> incomprehensible that one would want to PREVENT travesty if 
> one could.  By opening up the activities of the Panel to 
> wider participation perhaps there would be additional 
> volunteers, instead of attacking those who make the effort. 
> No wonder there seems to be a closed circle of Post 
> contributors and so few make any more attempts to lend aid.  
> And do not forget that I was and still am part of the 
> Verification Committee, another forgotten formalization 
> needing completion.
> 
> That you seem to disregard the differences in Time Zones and 
> rush through the vote shows something also and your comments 
> here are merely thinly veiled slurs against me personally, 
> and are noted as such.  That surprise me considering part of 
> my comments were in support of your position.  Hardly a 
> tactic to win wars if you attack those who would be
> allies in battle.   
> 
> The active correspondents in this list have been already 
> obviously in favor of action to remove S. Klein.  It should 
> be up to the Panel as leadership to present the Membership 
> with the means to do so.  Stop prevaricating, "representative 
> amount" is subjective and has been reached already if one 
> measures those actively participating in the Discussion list, 
> which is to say those who really care and have the time and 
> energy to contribute.
>  
> Sincerely,
>  
> Jeff Holt
> Jefftttt@txucom.net
> www.tejas-info-services.com
>  
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:08 PM
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Update on Status of affairs 
> per 6 July 2003
> 
> In regards to your questions and remarks:
> 
> > The rotation was never a great idea, dispense with it and
> > elect a Chair among those who ACTUASLLY show up!  And why has 
> > there been not further action on the replacement of the 
> > Missing Panelists???  
> 
> A. the panel decides on how it will fill the position of the 
> chair amongst them, such is our privelige which thus far has 
> been uncontested, any problems therefore with our ideas will 
> be worked out amongst the panel. B. Only the membership has a 
> right to take action against panel-members under whatever 
> circumstances, such is one of the ankers of democracy, if 
> panelmembers could be ousted by other panelmembers capture 
> would be the result within days. I suppose that once a vote 
> of no confidence is called for by a representative amount of 
> members we will have to organize a vote as such for whatever 
> panel member(s) you wish to vote upon.
>  
> > Another travesty lurking.....
> > http://mailman.icannatlarge.org/pipermail/pane>
> l/2003-July/000887.html 
> > Will this Working Group (WG) be stacked in the same manner as
> > the Web committee???  ON RECORD now, I "volunteer" to work on 
> > this Articles of Incorporation/By-Laws WG....
> 
> Why not read a motion before you try and raise the hords? Not 
> only is the remark on the webcomm outdated by far, it shows 
> far more that reading is not a generally acquired skill: 
> <quote> "That the wg shall be composed of volunteer Panel 
> members as well as volunteers from the general 
> membership."</quote> No comm has as yet been stacked and why 
> you would want to volunteer to be on a comm that might be a 
> "travesty lurking" is not really comprehensible. It also 
> seems you have more time on your hands then most of us have 
> to live, seeing as you want to be on the webteam, the 
> moderation team and now the WG on By-Laws, you gonna be busy!
> 
http://mailman.icannatlarge.org/pipermail/panel/2003-July/000849.html 
The panel rift widens...  Seems the ONLY time some participate is to
ARGUE AGAINST... and the very first motion on the table is STILL being
voted on?? Seems a bit out of order to move ahead when prior motions are
still pending outcome...  though I don't mind multi-tasking a bit,
finish this up soon so more faith may be placed in those who actually DO
some work on the Panel, like Abel, Hugh, and others who have voted on
every motion applicable to date.

If you do not like the attitude or opinion of some panel-members then
address these panelmembers, not the motion or the discussion. This
motion was changed several times and it's voting is nearly ended. The
status of affairs shows you such, hence I made it.

http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0306/msg01749.html 
For verification of my prior volunteering for the Web Committee, this
should be sufficient evidence.  In addition, the topic has been one of
those I make it a point to comment upon, clearly showing my interest. 

This has been corrected though up and untill now you did not reply to
mails on the topic.


Kind regards

Abel




---------------------------------------------------------------------
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