RE: [atlarge-discuss] How are Committee Chairs (or members) to be appointed?

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Asnwers in between lines:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com] 
> Sent: 05 June 2003 23:54
> To: abel@able-towers.com; 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] How are Committee Chairs (or 
> members) to be appointed?
> 
> 
> Abel wrote:
> 
> >Motion to instigate a verification committee:
> >
> >Upon acceptance of this motion the panel proposes:
> >
> >to propose to the membership to request Joey Borda to chair 
> a committee 
> >for the time of 6 months, consisting of at least 5 but no 
> more then 7 
> >members
> >
> >snip
> >
> >Motion was tabled by Abel and seconded by Hugh
> 
> A little definition needed here... Are you saying that the 
> Panel will propose *ONE* recommended individual as Chair of 
> the committee?

No I am saying that I have proposed to discuss the possibilty (seconded
by Hugh) of proposing to the membership that Joey is asked to chair a
verification committee which A. stays in place for an initial term of 6
months, and B. has beween 5 and 7 members and reports to the membership
the outcome of her actions which include verifying panelmebers,
committee members and such more.

Whether this results in said proposal is not clear yet, except for the
fact that Sotiris will not accept the motion or its outcome. 


> And the membership are to "request" Joey (or whoever) chairs 
> the committee... By what process is the Membership to *request* this?

It is not strange to a panel to propose certain members for certain
functions, they are proposals. In some environments the membership have
to overcome considerate hurdles to bring in their counter candidates and
once that is done an election is organized. Here we would not post those
hurdles, if the membership proposes another person, then there will be a
regular (and for me preferably email)vote of the entire membership.

The panel does not appoint committee members nor committee chairs
(another motion I brought forward) in my opinion, the membership does
so, but that does not stop the panel from proposing a candidate for such
a function.
 
> Will there be a Membership-wide e-mail vote (as for panel 
> members)? Will the vote be via the Polling Booth? Will the 
> vote simply be a straw poll on this mailing list?

Votes on people can never be simple straw polls, and as long as we have
no base-demands for "a" polling booth system and the current one has not
enough garantuees to ensure non-tempering, I would support an email vote
with the help of people who know how to organize this, it should not be
hard after our last lessons to come to an agreement with the membership
on who to run such a vote and bring in the safeguards required.

In my opinion is a vote on persons always confidential.
 
> And if Members are to vote on this, what process will exist 
> to propose alternative 'candidates'?

Again I speak my opinion, since you ask me,  I would not put up any bars
higher then at least a seconded nomintion.

> I'm asking these questions, not out of negativity, but 
> because we need to define *clear processes* before the Panel 
> can go ahead with this Motion. I mean : you can't vote in an 
> informed way unless you first define how the process will take place.


There we disagree. We can go ahead with this motion because it will only
be pertinent to ascertain what we do once the motion is put to vote as a
proposal, the meaning of the motion is to get the discussion going and
with the input received from panel members and membership to come to
either a proposal or to drop the matter.

Currently a totally rogue process is being used without any due process
and personal data is posted to the general list, ex-employers are called
and such, things that are in my eyes unacceptable. I prefer to put a
motion in to get discussion going to get an overall process established
before the atlarge once again gets killed by railroading.

> And I suggest that the definition of process is important, 
> not only with reference to this single committee, but because 
> we need to establish procedure for the establishment of *all* 
> committees.

Henceforth a second motion I brought forward that establishes that panel
members can never chair a committee nor can more then 2 panel members be
a part of any committee, nor can panel members ever be the majority on
any panel.


> I suggest that the membership needs to be involved in the 
> discussion about
> (a) what committees we need (so you don't get overlap); (b) 
> who has the mandate to appoint the Committee Chairs; (c) what 
> voting process should be used to vote for these Chairs; (d) 
> will the Membership only be 'given' one candidate or will the 
> vote be between all candidates that the Membership nominates 
> and seconds; (e) and will the other members of the Committees 
> also be appointed, and if so, by whom, and how?

A is never a limited list, ongoing evolving matter require new
committees, ideas from members will lead to new committees or
workgroups, perhaps a differntition should be made, perhaps not, I can
foresee on short term at least 5 or 6 comittees from the top of my head.
B. the committee itself should normally appoint the chair of that
committee, this however is a special case because it is not an ad-hoc
committee anymore, and the function of this committee is sensitive and
vital. The motion to ask the membership to propose Joey was based on
doing a good job in the first place and having the confidence of a large
part of the membership, the committees presentation of the verification
was open and clear for all and that lead Hugh and me to the conclusion
that we should support an ongoing effort of this kind. The motion was
first put forward on the general atlarge list before either of knew
whether we would be on the panel or not.
C I answered already
D. I answered alredy, this one basically came from the members abel and
hugh and was simply carried over to keep momentum going in an organized
and dignant manner.
E. I answered under B  

> As you can see, the motion you have proposed will only make 
> sense (and be worth voting on) if there is first an 
> established and agreed process through which the motion could 
> be carried out.

I think it is a process where the one does not exclude the other. 
 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Richard H

Hope you understand more of my thinking on this matter.

Abel




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