Re: [ga] an ISC

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-05-18 13:06:12 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>>Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, 
>>etc) and clone it.

>  An ISC would need an idependent and anonymous voting system, not 
>a clone of the GA system. 

What, precisely, is wrong with the current GA system?

>It would also need independent scrutineers.

What, precisely, is wrong with having "vote observers" which are  
reasonably independent wh4en taken as a group?  This is one example  
where biases in all directions can actually cancel out.

>As for seeding it with the whole membership of the GA. (incl.  
>those constituency members who are only subscribed to announce  
>lists) , the Individuals would start off with a whole lot of  
>corporate dilution.

Caused by whom?

>>other than that the member be able to establish that they are a 
>>real human being, and that they pay dues as required. (In 
>>particular, participation in another constituency in any 
>>capacity should not be a restriction on participation in the ISC 
>>in any capacity, except that a person can only be elected to the 
>>NC once.)

>...which will guarantee a potential to hold them hostage in an 
>IDNO style paralysis, especially when mailing lists are the sole 
>means of self-organizing and charter-writing. (GA clone)

As opposed to web forums, where the _only_ archive available is  
under central control?

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html