Re: [ga] [fwd] Nominating Committee & at-large (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 17:27 06/06/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>If I'm strongly mistaken about what you folks think, please speak up now, 
>so I can send a correction to the council. ;-)

Your report seems accurate in term of what I read too from the GA. But we 
could build a real and serious proposition from that, since Dennis Jennings 
and Joe Sims made the GA to represent the @large so far.

The easiest way IMHO to keep the @large notion effective and present would 
be to have "@large members" elected to the NomCom by the local communities 
- (ex.: one per GAC Member).

I nickname the NomCom "NomComgress" for three reasons :

1. to remind that the Reform Committee as expressed a question about its 
size. Obviously the largest the size the closest we are from the true 
@large population which is probably around 1500 individuals and corporate 
and organization people. So we may have stability and reasonable 
representativity without capture (either by external interest of by the BoD).

2. to permit at least some members of the NomCom to be elected. A two 
levels direct election was partly the one of the ALSC. In the interest of 
stability and representation of the different problems and solutions we 
should have 50/50 election from Internet Participants gathered through 
"netwide" types of concerns (the SOs) and Internet Participants gathered 
through personal issues or geography (the @large).

3. to follow on Kent Crispin's logic which should be acceptable to BoD and 
Staff. He says the NC is representative because it is elected, even if it 
is by non representative groups.
jfc

>From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>I may have not been as clear as I should be in one of my statements
>during today's call, concerning the relationship between a
>nominating committee and an at-large membership, so let me try to
>clarify this a bit more.
>
>1. It is safe to assume that most of the GA's members (certainly
>most of its active ones) would clearly favor direct at-large
>elections over any nominating (or rather: selection) committee
>approach.
>
>2. Since that doesn't seem to be feasible at this point of time,
>reserving a number of board seats for an at-large membership, and
>having the selection committeee fill these seats as a stop-gap
>measure, is certainly preferable over assigning these seats to a
>selection committee for all future, effectively eliminating even the 
>notion of an at-large membership.
>
>3. In order to make such an arrangement more than just a
>lip-service, the reservation of board seats for an at-large
>membership would have to have some teeth - for instance, a bylaws
>provision which mandates at-large elections at a well-defined point
>of time in the future, provided certain factual conditions are
>fulfilled.  Bad enough, it seems unlikely to me that the current board 
>would even consider such a change.
>
>4. Maybe having some kind of open election for some (or even all?
>;-) members of the selection committee may be the way to go for at
>least some at-large membership representation within the structure
>currently proposed.
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>--
>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
>
>