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

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

I can certainly live with that setup.

However......:)

No I am not gonna back out of that again, I agree one hundred percent
with that and will support it with the same percentage.

But, as far as I know we do not yet have access to the website.
We do not yet have a webcommittee, webmaster and such more
We can not do all things at the same time
I have proposed to send a digest of the panellist to the general lists 
We do not have administrative access to the general maillist
The panel list archives are public and instant

We are still in the process of deciding on a chairman, (yes in the first
few months on rotation for a plentitude of reasons) and would like to
get things "underway" as good as possible. One step at a time is usual
the best way to run.

Kind regards

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com] 
> Sent: 06 June 2003 00:23
> To: abel@able-towers.com; 'Atlarge Discuss List'
> Subject: Process for involving members prior to panel votes
> 
> 
> 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