[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Poll watcher rights and duties

At 01:00 a.m. 12/04/2003, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:



Not that you necessarily want to hear this, Joop, I think
the very *last* thing one wants to do in a "situation where
nobody is trusted" is have several individuals each in
sole control of one of multiple elections for the same
positions.
At least we agree on being in a situation where nobody is trusted.
Multiple independent reference points may be the last thing *you* want, but you have not made any case for an alternative way for active individuals to gain the trust of this community needed to be entrusted with holding an election.

Having equal poll outcomes from different independent sources would certainly help to establish confidence, I believe.


 I think we have only two options before us now:

1) Agree to work together - despite whatever reservations
   we may have about one individual or another - and make
   sure whatever mechanism we choose is jointly administered
   by a committee whose members will co-operate despite the
   fact that they have different interests as individuals.

Preferable.


OR

2) Agree that we can't or won't work together, in which case
   this group ceases to exist as an entity and its members
   are free to do whatever they like individually or with
   a few chosen colleagues.
I do not think that this group as a community would cease to exist, unless all active members would give up publishing anything to the web.
The IDNO was killed, not by a split, but by one individual getting hold of the domain, the website and the mailing list IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SHUT THEM DOWN. This was done by driving all good will from the mailing list.

You and me agreeing would be helpful, but this group (not necessarily this ML) can continue to exist as a community and a democratic representation mechanism, umbrella structure or not, can be made for it, by any other member or group of members.
Neither of us are indispensible.
As long as someone keeps paying for the icannatlarge web presence, it will be there, ready for democracy.

The distribution of power in any meaningful democracy is
based on the principles that
a) a collective interest exists within its population;
b) its members are willing to delegate tasks and powers
   to those elected to positions of responsibility so
   that the collective interest can be served;
c) efforts must be made to avoid situations where too
   much power is in too few hands or where the elected
   find their personal interests interfering with the
   honest and wholehearted performance of the work they
   were elected for.
Wholeheartedly agree. Most of our voters agree with that too, according to the Poll.

>An elected Polling committee can decide which Polling service to use
>and
>they can even rotate Polls between different systems. When the
>outcomes of
>different systems are consistent, it means the systems are neutral.

Questions:
- Who has decided that what the group needs is an elected
  Polling Committee rather than, say, one committee working
  on membership issues and another responsible for conducting
  elections?

The people who supported the options of their choice in the poll.



- Can you name any legitimate organization which determines
  the neutrality and statistical significance of its polls
  by trying a bunch of different ways rather than making
  sure it chooses a valid method in the first place?
No, but tell me a cheaper and better way to bootstrap order our of chaos in cyberspace.

>Instead we can get on with the Nominations  that we are all waiting
>for.

I believe it has been made clear to all here that the Call for
Nominations and explanations of the election process are in
the works already.

Prodding this process along can not do any harm.


>The members do not need any code to start making nominations in the
>public
>Forum.
>Candidates do not need code to post their candidacy , pictures and
>election
>promises.

I believe nobody has, as yet, decided that the nominations
will be made on your site or that candidates will be
required to post their photographs on the Web.
Correct.
Jefsey has to use the .org site to revive the Forum there. Now that he has access, it is only a few keystrokes to revive the Forum, make himself Forum administrator and remove the picture.

>While they do this, your team can work on a new Polling System.
>What they do need NOW is for someone to "officially" open the
>Nominations
you to run *any* elections yet, Joop. There are other
members who don't want to run for office who can do it,
so why not just run yourself?
For what? Did you not argue that the election parameters still need to be defined?
Better start defining. The Poll outcome will guide you.

>But you should not hold up the nominations.

In a fair democratic process, all members must be given an
equal opportunity to nominate candidates for all open
positions. To me, that means nominations cannot be thrown
open until the parameters of the election, including the
nomination period and procedure, are finalized and published
to all members.

Agree.



Following democratic norms is not a way to
"hold up the nominations" but a way to make sure the
process is fair and transparent. I think we need that
very badly at this point.
Also agree.
Please propose a timetable and a plan for action to finalize the parameters of the election.


-joop-



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