[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options
At 03:10 a.m. 1/03/2003, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yes, I cannot disagree with that principle and I will do the best I can to
include as many of the 169 passive members as possible.
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.
Both Jan and Walt have agreed with my approach.
Will you agree also, if I send them a reminder today? Up to now, 17 have
opted in to receive Polling messages and I got one address change request.
Alternatively, as you have the full list yourself and have volunteered to
watch over election voting, you can make sure yourself that definitely all
members remain in the loop come election time.
For the Poll on structure that I will conduct as a bottom-up member
initiative, I do not feel that the absence of those who did not want to
receive messages will make a significant difference.
Of the ones who DO want to receive messages 1 in 5 votes. How many votes
would we miss at worst? Enough to give those who want to discredit the
results an argument.:-) , but otherwise only important in marginal vote
I will send the 169 a reminder today.
For the moment that's the most I want to do to people who requested not to
You can at least make sure that the last twenty, who signed up in
Vittorio's time, will be added to my list so that those votes are not lost.
It is not more legitimate or impartial, it is just the same. We are both
unelected members, now each with the options to spam or not to spam.
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.
You have a point, I have another. I respect yours and I will not oppose
if YOU as a watcher decide to let me send the Structure and procedure Poll
Notice to all members.
In fact , if you send me the list that you now have, and there is
significant support for your point, I will do it and share my
responsibility for the spamming with a wider group.
Whoever on this list supports me sending this Poll message to the *whole*
list, please give your support to Judith's argument.
I will wait.
I do. Kibitzing leads to further improvements with our procedures.
I don't know whether you want me to be a watcher or not.
But please remember that democracy cannot have a virgin birth.
It sprouts from the actions of empowered individual members, not from their
Thus far, only Jeff has formally objected to my serving as
I would like you to join Jan and Walt in the watching. Can you promise not
to hold up the Polling? Voting among the watchers may hold up the Polling.
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.
Jan cannot always reply in under 24 H.
See it as another test run of Polling via the Booth. Give it at least a
Since you are invited late, you may want to be filled in on correspondence
between Jan, Walt and me that has already passed.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org