DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update No 3

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 No 4 is now at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00010.doc
>> 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.

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>