Re: [ga] Two things troubling me with the GA Chair elections...

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 6 December 1999, John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net> wrote:

>I'm not wild about a number of aspects of this either, starting
>with one of the underlying themes of the discussion of the last
>few weeks (random noise filtered out).   That theme is "GA as
>interest group/ constituency of its own".   For better or worse,
>the DSNO isn't designed that way.  

Well, there is something to be said for the fact that the GA
contains, as part of its membership, those who cannot be
represented by any constituency.  Regardless of what the NC
may have intended when forming the GA, the GA now exists not
as an additive function of the bodies of the DNSO, but as
a superset thereof.  

>As I've said in previous
>notes, the combination of that design and having groups in the
>GA who are clearly disenfranchised implies a problem that needs
>to be fixed, either by some appropriate readjustment of the
>constituency list or by deciding that the GA contains
>unrepresented interests after all, and contains them to the
>extent that the GA ought to be represented on the NC. Without
>that fixed, we inevitably have a confusing situation on our
>hands.  I think your note reflects some of the confusion.

I agree completely.  However, I've witnessed the following 
in that regard:

1)  In San Jose, the "GA" is officially formed, and several
NC members make very clear that the GA mailing list shall be
the sole expression of the GA, and argue for exactly that wording.

2)  During the NC elections, that definition of the GA was 
changed 'on-the-fly', for whatever reason.

3)  Any attempt to address the issue of the disenfranchised
within the GA results in statements like:  "Wait for the 
At-Large membership, that'll be the panacea", or "They can
always join one of the existing constituencies."  The former
is, at least IMHO, a brush-off, and has been used as such to
excuse the continued blindness towards the need for an actual
individual stakeholder's constituency.  The latter is simply
not true.


>
>Specifically, with regard to your two points...
>
>--On Monday, December 06, 1999 09:38 -0800 "Mark C. Langston"
><skritch@home.com> wrote:
>
>> 1)  The NC and officers of the DNSO are being allowed to vote
>> -- something that Caroline Chicoine changed the voting
>>    procedures to allow at the very last minute.
>>    (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00173.html
>>    ).
>>...
>>    While I do believe the NC members have a right to
>>    participate in the GA, I find it improper that they be
>>    allowed to influence a decision on which they have final
>>    say.
>
>This, of course, hinges critically on whether the GA is a
>separate entity, with its own interests, etc., or whether it is
>(as designed) just the union of the various groups and actors in
>the DNSO.   If the former, you are probably correct: this would
>be in bad taste, if not actually improper and, of course, the
>whole notion of the NC picking the GA's leadership would be
>strange indeed.  Of course, many others, assuming that the GA is
>a separate body, a constituency onto itself, have made the
>latter observation repeatedly.   If the latter, it would be
>quite unreasonable to expect them, as participants in the DNSO
>generally and the GA in particular, to not have opinions.  

We may have to agree to disagree on this.  Allowing the NC
members to have a formal voice in this process, and then allowing
them the final decision, gives them two votes, in essence, where
the rest of the GA doesn't even get one vote.

It's simply unfair, and at best is in poor taste.


> The
>only question of propriety would arise if, by making statements
>on the GA list (i.e., by expressing their opinions, not just
>having them), they had a disproportionate influence on others.

There's another case:  Where, by formally participating in this
portion of the process, they can exert significant influence
over the outcome.  Given the severely low participation rate
right now, one could argue this is the case.


>That just isn't an issue here, since the GA isn't voting.  And
>it would take quite a leap to believe that the NC membership was
>more influenced by these people's opinions expressed on the GA
>list than by their opinions expressed in NC-only conversations
>(especially since it is still my impression that the majority of
>the NC are not following the GA discussions on a real-time
>basis).

Exactly.  So, these NC members already know who they want in
the position, and are acting to make sure that outcome occurs.
If I know I can choose any flavor of ice cream from among a selection
of one or more, and I act ahead of time to ensure that only my
favorite flavor is put before me come decision time, I've 
unfairly influenced the outcome...particularly when those who
are making the initial decisions are supposed to be represented
by my final decision.

It'd also be hypocritical of me to say that I will not accept
having a single choice put before me, but then keep my mouth shut
when my actions make it so that I have only one single choice:
my favorite.

>
>
>> 2) Discussions among the NC made it clear that they would not
>> be willing to accept a result in which only one or two
>>    candidates were put forth for their selection.  Yet
>>    clearly, this is what's about to happen. I find it
>>    interesting that the NC, who feared we might give them no
>>...
>
>Well, from what I've heard about those discussions and what the
>NC was willing to accept, the case they wanted to exclude
>involved the GA's tentatively nominating some people, conducting
>a selection process of its own, and then putting only the
>"winner"* forward.


My understanding was that they would reject out-of-hand any proposal
that resulted in only one or two candidates being put before them,
regardless of how those candidates were chosen.  In fact, I
believe there were arguments that they wanted 3-5 candidates from
which to choose.

>   At least so far, that hasn't happened: we
>got some nominations and acceptances according to the rules, the
>endorsement process is now in motion, and all of the candidates
>thus nominated by the GA are going to the NC, not some subset of
>them selected by a putative GA election (with all of the
>uncertainties about identities, etc., that implies).   Not an
>entirely satisfactory situation in terms of the slate of
>candidates, but not in violation of that preference/statement
>either.
>

My point here was that right now, only one candidate will have
enough endorsements to be a candidate for Chair, and I don't
forsee that changing.  So there would only be one candidate
put before the NC;  this is exactly the situation they said
they would not accept, in any form.  I'm just amused that
it's "okay" now.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA