On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, jpinkerton wrote:
Not unless John stops making decisions for everybody (such as that
council will sit for one year or that only those who have posted in
last 30 days can vote, etc). This is NOT how democracy works and
he just does not understandard (either did not read enough about
it or no experience within small groups for organizing it). The result
will be a failure for this initiative.
This process has been outlined for some time now, and I have incorporated
various ideas from constructive criticism I have had.
No you have not. But you probably will now having seen responses to my
latest poll and if you don't you should not expect me to participate and
probably number of others.
I am not running a "perfectly democratic" procedure here, anyone can see
that.
And as I suspected you have made decisions that were not represetative of
what majority wanted and that you had no rights to make in the first
place. The initial responses from my today's poll show quite clearly that:
1. People want SPF Council to work on Charter & other rules for SPF
2. They want council that will ONLY function until the rules are approved
and then new elections are called
3. The people do not want vote limited to only those who posted within
last month and want everybody to have right to participate
That is exactly as I suspected people on the list wanted (and to me an
obvious derivite on that we're currently making call for initial council
to boot-start process) and you refused to listen when I tried to correct
how you were conducting the vote.
What in happening is that a small body will be elected in a reasonable
time and in a "reasonably democratic" fashion by the majority of the
people who are active on the spf-discuss list, from a list of nominations
which has been successful in attracting a good number of names.
All the beaurocratic suggestions for procedures, voting methods, etc, etc,
will drag the agony out over more months than we can afford.
These are not beaurocratic precedures, they are procedures that can insure
openness of the process and insures that results can be verified by
anybody on the list and that everybody can participate on equal terms.
I'm not interested in dragging the process, I prefer to hold elections
fast as well - I just don't think you understand what open process means
and that includes that you would not make rules that restrict the process
unless everybody has agreed to these restrictions prior to election.
To establish "perfectly democratic" election system has challenged
major governments all over the world, and they have *ALL* failed
miserably. If you think you can do better - write to George Bush ;-)
US is not a democratic government, in fact its moving more and more
towards restricted republic from what was reasonably working system
at the beginning of 20th century. And Mr Bush is simply not smart enough
to understand this and even if it does, it actually works for him better
and he has no reason to change anything.
Meantime we have the opportunity to do this now, and allow the newly elected
council to create the environment for SPF to restart and finish off the work
that needs to be done. If we continue to chase our tails, looking for a
system which will satisfy everyone on this list - we will still be arguing
while other protocols take over where SPF left off.
It is impossible to create perfect and self-protected system immediatly.
But it is reasonable to conduct initial procedures in the most open style
and you have not been doing it.
I am pefectly happy to answer any questions about, or constructive
criticisms of the procedure we are following.
"Answering questions" is not the same as listing to what others want and
modifying process accordingly.
I am *not* happy with any attempts by one or two individuals to derail what
is now a fairly fast moving train. Any such action would be seen as against
the best interests of SPF.
*You* can be happy or sad as much or as little as you want. *You* are not
SPF and can not say that something is not in the best interest of SPF if
*you* are not happy with it.
William - Please join in and enjoy the ride - the results will be a good
reflection of what people want. It has worked for other groups with far
greater problems than this.
I'll join as soon as you stop making rules for everybody - you're only
conducting the vote and its initial vote for that matter and that means
the procedure for it should be an open one.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net