Re: [atlarge-discuss] 11 Member Panel

["A/S Mauro D. Ríos" <mdrios@adinet.com.uy>]

Ron & All,

Well spoken, i agree with this democracy concept.

In all way the decision of reducing the Panel, or to enlarge it, or to disable the whole Panel, or a very crazy hypothesis of being governed by direct democracy (I don't agree), it is right exclusive of all us the members. And this should be very clear in the statutes.

greetings,
Mauro.-

  ----- Mensaje original ----- 
  De: Ron Sherwood 
  Para: Sotiris Sotiropoulos ; At Large Discuss 
  Enviado: domingo, 01 de junio de 2003 10:11
  Asunto: Re: [atlarge-discuss] 11 Member Panel


  Good morning, Sotiris:

  You wrote:
  > With respect to the 11 member panel.  In the event that one or more of
  > the elected Panelists proves to be unverifiable, I think it's best the
  > Panel be reduced in size rather than have any replacements promoted from
  > the candidates who did not make the top 11.

  I absolutely disagree with your proposal.

  Under no circumstances should the number of panelists be reduced.  Your
  suggestions that the Panel be limited to a quorum of 4 and be reduced in
  number through the disqualification process opens the Panel to capture and
  abuse by 4 people.

  We need 11 Panelists.
  A minimum of 6 participants for a quorum.
  ALL Panelists must be copied on ALL discussion.
  ALL Panelists must be called to vote.
  Failure to participate must lead to replacement NOT attrition.

  Regards, Ron Sherwood.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
  To: "At Large Discuss" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
  Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 4:55 AM
  Subject: [atlarge-discuss] 11 Member Panel


  > With respect to the 11 member panel.  In the event that one or more of
  > the elected Panelists proves to be unverifiable, I think it's best the
  > Panel be reduced in size rather than have any replacements promoted from
  > the candidates who did not make the top 11.
  >
  > -Sotiris Sotiropoulos
  >
  > --
  > -----------
  >
  > "The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
  > ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
  > But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
  > modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
  >
  > From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
  > and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
  > minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
  > power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
  > about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
  > nothing."
  >      --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  > 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