Re: [ncc-charter] Re: charter - question and some suggested new text

From: Milton Mueller (
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 07:39:02 PDT

  • Next message: Milton Mueller: "Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Replacing Section F of the Charter"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Adam Peake" <>

    > Bad resolutions will fail, good will pass (perhaps :-) Who makes them
    > should not matter. I would allow non-voting to be able to propose
    > resolutions. (i.e. non-voting members may not vote in elections, may not
    > stand as officers of the constituency and may not vote on resolutions.
    > they may propose resolutions and may participate in the constituency's
    > online and face to face discussions.)

    No, I can't agree with this. The problem is that it allows people with no
    stake in the constituency to dominate our agenda and activity. The work
    involved in voting down a bad resolution is substantial. It consumes time on
    a busy list. It can be exploited as a kind of denial of service attack.

    This does not deny nonmembers an opportunity to propose resolutions, it
    simply means that they must find a real member to support it. If someone who
    wants the constituency to pass a resolution can't find a SINGLE MEMBER in
    the constituency to propose it for them, then it shouldn't be proposed.
    Simple as that.

    > As Kent says, this may be too much for the urgent charter revision
    > before the election.

    No, we need to clarify the resolution process also. Otherwise we have more
    obstacles to accomplishing real business. We can just use the previous Adcom
    resolution procedure that was passed before Yokohama, and modify it as


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 07:40:25 PDT