Re: [atlarge-discuss] Membership Committee

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

I know, it's difficult. At this stage in our development maybe it's not
vital. When we're larger, I'm sure it will be. I'd favour appointed
Committees or elected committees myself, either endorsed by the Chair or by
the membership. But I wouldn't say it's a life or death issue at this
juncture! Because I've been thinking about the future, and the constitution,
I guess I'm envisaging scenarios where things could go wrong, and one
scenario would be a chaotic Committee situation where 20 or 30 people,
including notorious loud voices, actually stifle the sharp defining report
writing that might be done by a smaller group within the general open
discussion.

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>
To: 'Atlarge Discuss List' <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:22 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Membership Committee


> And how do you propose to establish who is best suited ?
>
> Abel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> > Sent: 01 June 2003 16:02
> > To: abel@able-towers.com; 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Membership Committee
> >
> >
> > I don't personally believe that voting membership of
> > Committees should be self-selecting, simply by people
> > volunteering. I agree that all members have a right to
> > participate and contribute, but in order to generate the best
> > possible reports and proposed policies, I believe the best
> > individuals for the job should be the ones who actually vote
> > on final reports and recommendations... this is better
> > achieved by a smaller team, than by 20 or 30 people, some of
> > whom are simply involved because they appoint themselves.
> >
> > I think it is the task of this organisation to identify the
> > best teams to carry out the formal aspect of the
> > committees... it shouldn't just be an open door and anyone
> > walks in with a vote.
> >
> > Everyone, though, should be allowed to participate in
> > discussion and make their contributions.
> >
> >
> > Richard H
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>
> > To: 'Atlarge Discuss List' <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:34 PM
> > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Membership Committee
> >
> >
> > > I agree with this as I posted earlier as far as itr concerns the
> > > chair. I do not agree to the chair forming a team, all thse
> > who want
> > > to contribute should be allowed to do so. Decisions should
> > be taken by
> > > majority votes.
> > >
> > > Abel
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> > > > Sent: 01 June 2003 12:16
> > > > To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos; At Large Discuss
> > > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Membership Committee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I advocate an organised and regulated approach to the
> > formation of
> > > > all our committees.
> > > >
> > > > I refer you to the section on Standing Committees in these draft
> > > > bylaws: http://www.icannatlarge.co.uk/draftbylawsarticle05.htm
> > > >
> > > > Basically, I suggest that the Membership should vote a Chair for
> > > > each Committee, and then the Chair (who has the Membership's
> > > > endorsement for that
> > > > role) can appoint the team she/he wants to work with (who will be
> > > > responsible for voting on final reports and recommendations). Of
> > > > course, the agenda and objectives of each Committee should be
> > > > publicised to the entire Membership (through Website
> > and/or Mailing
> > > > List) and *all* members have the right to contribute and
> > > > participate.
> > > >
> > > > But it's important that - to avoid confusion and excess noise
> > > > - the substantial reports and decisions are taken by a
> > team, and I
> > > > think the Chairman at least should be selected by and
> > accountable to
> > > > the Membership.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously - to address immediate and pressing concerns about
> > > > panelists identities etc, there's nothing wrong with some ad hoc
> > > > informal action, but the sooner we get this organisation on a
> > > > formal, regulated footing, the better.
> > > >
> > > > Hope some of this is helpful
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Richard Henderson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > > > To: At Large Discuss <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 8:13 AM
> > > > Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Membership Committee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I volunteer to head up a Membership Committee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > -
> > > > 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
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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