Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options

[espresso@e-scape.net]

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