[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, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

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.
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.
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 -outcomes.
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 be spammed.

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.


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.
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.
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 don't know whether you want me to be a watcher or not.
I do. Kibitzing leads to further improvements with our procedures.
But please remember that democracy cannot have a virgin birth.
It sprouts from the actions of empowered individual members, not from their words only.

Thus far, only Jeff has formally objected to my serving as

 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.
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.
Jan cannot always reply in under 24 H.

See it as another test run of Polling via the Booth. Give it at least a hard look.

Since you are invited late, you may want to be filled in on correspondence between Jan, Walt and me that has already passed.

Best regards,


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