[atlarge-discuss] Process for involving members prior to panel votes

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

Abel

I recognise that some of the proposed motions refer to internal panel
procedures such as the rotation of the Chair and so on.

However, where Motions have substantial significance to the structure of the
organisation and the development of policy etc I really strongly advise that
you reverse the concept that "before the panel proposes matters to the
membership they
should at the very least have an majority opinion as a panel before"...

Surely we are trying to build in as much reasonable and informed democratic
participation as possible, and it is wholly likely that valuable insights
can be gained from Members in order to *inform* panelists 'majority
opinion'.

In many instances, the development of a Panel opinion (via a Panel vote)
will be facilitated if the membership is involved in an open discussion
period prior to the Panel vote being taken.

The action should run like this:

Panel motion (seconded) > publication of motion on Discuss list and Website
> period of time for Membership discussion and participation > panel
amendments to the motion in the light of informed discussion > vote > quorum
of at least 7 > publication of result (a) on Discuss List (b) on Website

I urge the Panel to consider and adopt this as standard process for all
motions except those which only effect the Panel itself.

Kind regards,

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>
To: 'Atlarge Discuss List' <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:01 AM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: @LARGE ELECTION: Do you accept your
result?


> In order to get the membership more involved and informed of the
> going-ons on the panellists I have porposed to send a digest from that
> list to the general list daily.
>
> Many of these motions currently open are motions for the internal
> functioning of the panel and courtesy action to be taken.
> Also I think before the panel proposes matters to the membership they
> should at the very least have an majority opinion as a panel before
> that.
>
> However as I said in the first alinea, I think it important to lower the
> treshold of participation by sending out this digest. However that is MY
> opinion and that is not one that should be shared, it could be and I
> hope it will be.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Abel
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> > Sent: 05 June 2003 23:16
> > To: abel@able-towers.com; 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: @LARGE ELECTION: Do you
> > accept your result?
> >
> >
> > Abel
> >
> > On the Panel list you have been helpfully trying to develop
> > clear procedures for motions, such as:
> >
> > "Some motions need a long discuss time, others can be handled
> > quick and painless, it is up to us with support of the
> > chairman to determnine how much time we need on discussion of
> > a motion but limits should be set to f.i. 5 days or 1 week,
> > this does not dissalow for motions with a low discuss
> > turnover to be voted upon earlier, if the motioner agrees to that."
> >
> > Can I ask for consideration to be given, within any
> > timescales for motions, for due notification on this Discuss
> > list, and sufficient time for all members to study the Panel
> > motions and contribute to the decision-making process?
> >
> > I think it is generally not sufficient for the Panel to
> > discuss a motion, and *communication* is important so that
> > Members retain input into decision-making processes.
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Richard H



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