Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update No 3

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:03:57 -0800 (PST), Patrick Greenwell
<patrick@stealthgeeks.net> wrote:

>yOn Thu, 17 Jan 2002, David Farrar wrote:
>
>> DRAFT 4 OUT
>>
>> Draft No 4 is now at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00010.doc
>>
>> QUORUM FOR ALSO
>>
>> Draft 3 proposed a minimum 30,000 people have to join the ALSO befoe it could
>> elect Board members etc.  In post http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
>> str/Arc00/msg00073.html I suggested 1,000 or so would be a more appropriate
>> level.
>
>I would suggest that the minimum level be however many people vote.
>All of these "minimum participation levels" are a distraction perpetrated
>by entrenched interests with the aim of preventing representation.

What is proposed is not an actual minimum voting level but a minimum
membership level before one holds a vote.  I think there is some
legitimate concern that if for example the membership fee was set at
US$150 and only 60 people joined (all happening for example to be IP
lawyers) that one wouldn't want that group of 60 to be able to elect
at large directors.

I suspect that until one knows what the membership criteria and fee
are going to be, it will be difficult to set a sensible minimum level
as this will depend on those two factors (amongst other things.)

>Apologies to those that might view this as American-centric(insert your
>country of origin if it makes you feel better) but does the U.S. decide
>that it can't elect officials unless a set number of individuals or
>percentage of the populace vote?

Yet many organisations do have quorums.  Would be good to have more
feedback on this issue though.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html