|
Grex > Coop8 > #47: Proposed Change in Co-op FW Terms |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 143 responses total. |
chelsea
|
|
response 50 of 143:
| 
Apr 10 01:01 UTC 1996 |
Scott, the login screen issue is either a non-issue in most
people's mind or soon to be resolved through the suggested
login screen item (forget the number). This is not about
recalling the current FWs. One more time for clarity, this
is not about recalling the current fairwitnesses.
It's about opening up volunteer positions and giving more users
the chance to see things from different seats. It's time.
I'd hope both tsty and nephi would be willing to do that,
willingly. If not, despite the participants wish to do so,
that might become a nasty issue. But I don't think that will
happen.
But please, don't continue to cry "Persecution!" where there
isn't any. There are good and supported reasons for this
change.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 51 of 143:
|
Apr 10 01:10 UTC 1996 |
Mary, these are good intentions but you cant shove them down tsty and
nephi's throats...you didnt stip in your rules as to when your rules
can be changed, and to what extent current fw's are subject to future
changes. If they took the fw jobs under the old understandings, they
are bound only by those understandings. There is no mechanism for
forcing them out and there is no mechanism for stipulating that current
fw's have accept future philosophical changes.
And on an unrelated note...should people run for fw's as pairs? It
wouldnt do for two people to get elected as fw's who dont like each other
or dont work well together
|
brighn
|
|
response 52 of 143:
|
Apr 10 06:16 UTC 1996 |
Do change my support vote to a non-support vote if you haven't
already, Mary. The more I think about this, the worse it gets.
(Don't spread it around, but I've been listening to RIchard, and
his content, though not his verboisty, has convinced me.)
|
dang
|
|
response 53 of 143:
|
Apr 10 06:31 UTC 1996 |
if it involves kicking out ts and nephi, change my yes to a no too.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 54 of 143:
|
Apr 10 09:00 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 55 of 143:
|
Apr 10 12:21 UTC 1996 |
Changes made. The vote presently: 11 for
7 against
|
ajax
|
|
response 56 of 143:
|
Apr 10 19:10 UTC 1996 |
Mary, I think the issue is now clouded by immediately expiring the
current fw terms. I still support the basic proposal of rotating
fws as outlined in #0, but I oppose the ousting/re-electing them
right now...among other things, though any connection has been
credibly denied, it has the appearance of a reaction against the
current fws. I'd be comfortable with the proposal if TS served
out the rest of the year, and nephi served out the rest of next
year, or something like that, but not with your current proposal
of immediately expiring their terms. So, without change, count
me as a no, too!
|
chelsea
|
|
response 57 of 143:
|
Apr 10 22:26 UTC 1996 |
Gotcha. What I find interesting though is how it looks
like if tsty and nephi voluteered to serve a full term
under this proposal they'd almost certainly have the
votes to get it.
Should I drop this whole thing then? There really should
be obvious support to go forward. As of now it's something
like 10/8. Doesn't sound "obvious" to me.
|
dang
|
|
response 58 of 143:
|
Apr 10 22:34 UTC 1996 |
Ask TS and nephi.
|
scg
|
|
response 59 of 143:
|
Apr 10 22:47 UTC 1996 |
I'm having a little trouble seeing why there's a huge concern about ousting
the current FWs. They wouldn't be being ousted, but rather given the
opportunity to run for the job. As incumbents, they'd probably have a big
advantage in such an election. Wouldn't it make more sense for people who
support this concept but don't want to oust TS and Mike to support having
the election, and then vote for TS and Mike?
|
dang
|
|
response 60 of 143:
|
Apr 11 05:27 UTC 1996 |
Well, I'd support that as long as TS and Mike weren't forced to run. If they
agree, fine. If they don't, then I don't support it.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 61 of 143:
|
Apr 11 12:12 UTC 1996 |
I also agree with Kerouac about TS and Nephi needing to agree to run, or else
letting them finish out their terms. Count me as against the idea of putting
them up now. The issue isn't that they would almost certainly win, it's that
we can't just suddenly change things under them.
|
steve
|
|
response 62 of 143:
|
Apr 11 12:36 UTC 1996 |
Daniel, why?
I don't see why the FW's of coop shouldn't be asked to run. What
is it that makes you think they should be protected in that manner?
The term of FWship was undefined more or less. Remember, the FW is
a steward of the conference, nothing more or less.
|
ajax
|
|
response 63 of 143:
|
Apr 11 17:12 UTC 1996 |
STeve, I can't answer for others, but here's my answer:
I don't have a problem changing rules, or asking them to run,
except that the timing, as has been mentioned previously, seems
suspiciously directed toward the current fws because of recent
disagreements. Such a notion has been disavowed, but by making
the elections immediate, it *seems* like that's what's going on.
That may not be Mary's intent, but that's the appearance, to me.
If the proposal for elections is "now or never," that further
reinforces that appearance.
|
dang
|
|
response 64 of 143:
|
Apr 11 18:17 UTC 1996 |
I disagree with the idea of kicking them out because there was no such
agreement when they started. If I took a job that is a service to others,
with the implied agreement that I would be carrying out that service until
I agreed that someone else would take up that service, I would be very ticked
if those others suddenly came and told me that I had to stop performing that
service, and run for election. For me, the recent disagreement isn't as
important as the idea of jerking the rug out from under them.
|
steve
|
|
response 65 of 143:
|
Apr 11 18:37 UTC 1996 |
This raises an interesting question. If it isn't OK to ask them to
put their hats in the ring now, when will it be? Next month? 4 years
from now?
Mary's idea was to make something of a system for the selection of
FW's in this conference. If now isn't a good time to implement that,
when is? Or rather, when isn't a good time?
Dan, I don't think that the current FW's agreed to accept the job
until someone else would stand forward. Now, TS and/or Nephi can
correct me if I'm wrong, but if I am, something rather wrong was said
to them at the start.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 66 of 143:
|
Apr 11 18:46 UTC 1996 |
Actually, the more that I think about it, the more I wonder if electing
fw's, even though it seems like a good idea and a fair idea under the
right circumstances, might not defeat its own purpose. The idea is to
get more people interested in fw'ing and allow more people to have fw
experience.
But if the price of being an fw is that you have to endure a
contest, essentially allow yourself to be judged against other
prospective fw's, this might well discourage people from wanting to be
a fair witness. Under this setup, the folks who end up as fw's are
more likely than not going to be whoever is the most popular or knows the
most people in the conf. FW duties are defined well enough that any
contest is not going to be issue driven in most cases.
So, in retrospect, what I think would be a better idea is to go ahead
with term limits for fw's, but let the current fw's recommend their own
successors and then simply have the users vote on that recommendation.
In some extreme case where users vote down an fw's recommendation, he/she
can simply take volunteers or whatever and make another recommendation.
In this way, you'd avoid a contest but the fw would still be subject to
general user approval. Under Mary's plan, if you vote for one person as
fw, you are voting against whoever else is running. And 99% of the time,
none of us are going to have any real objections to any of the candidates.
I really think many people wouldnt want to try to be fw's if it means
having to be judged against other users and risking possible rejection.
|
dang
|
|
response 67 of 143:
|
Apr 11 20:18 UTC 1996 |
That's my point. I don't feel they should be kicked out at all, so if they
don't agree, I vote against the whole thing. Not "they can start a two year
term", but I vote against the whole thing.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 68 of 143:
|
Apr 11 20:32 UTC 1996 |
The real point is term limits anyway. Thats what will give other folks
the opportunies to be fw's. Let's just say that once a year, at the end
of the year, the current fws have to re-approved by a simple yes/no vote.
And once any fw has served two consecutive years, its agreed that they will
either recommend someone else or ask for a volunteer replacement, and that
person would be subject to user approval in the same manner.
At the end of this year, ts and nephi can enter an item in which they ask
for a simple yes/no vote on whether they should serve for another year.
This follows the same rationale for why there are term limits for board
members.
|
ajax
|
|
response 69 of 143:
|
Apr 11 21:24 UTC 1996 |
STeve, my suggestion above was to synch the elections with the board
elections, toward the end of the year, and stagger them so TS's slot
goes first, then nephi's the next year (since he only started
recently). If this isn't an attempt to oust the current FWs, I
don't see why such a delay should matter. If someone does want to
oust the current FWs, they should just come out and say so.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 70 of 143:
|
Apr 11 22:13 UTC 1996 |
Hm. This reminds me somehow, (last 10 - 12 plus minus posts or so) of an
article about Yeltsin considering postponing the elections over there. How
can we enforce rules fairly and equitably, unless we make the rules known to
all in advance? That is is my real complaint about all the complaining.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 71 of 143:
|
Apr 12 02:00 UTC 1996 |
ajax, what you suggest equivocates coop fw's with board members...being'
a board member is more important than being fw of coop...lets be
realistic here. A fw doesnt decide how money is spent. Staggering
(in my opinion) is a bad idea because the fw's need to be able to work
together. This is why its more important to get fw's who volunteer
and are willing to work together. It might be nice to hae democratically
elected fw's, but its more important to have fw's who can work as a
team. This is why its better to avoid a contest and let the fw recommend
his /her succesor, subject to user approval. Any politicization of the
process could be problematic.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 72 of 143:
|
Apr 12 03:02 UTC 1996 |
I could most certainly support ajax's suggestion in #69.
Nephi and tsty, would you agree?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 73 of 143:
|
Apr 12 03:25 UTC 1996 |
I think fw's should be elected/appointed together...you have to want
people together who can work together. I think the fact that tsty
and nephi started at different times is irrelevant.
|
brighn
|
|
response 74 of 143:
|
Apr 12 16:31 UTC 1996 |
IF there is interest in term limits and/or elected FWs for Co-op, it
seems to *me* the only fair thing to do is wait for each of the current FWs
to step down in their own time, appoint a replacement FW for that spot
until the next relevant meeting, and then convert *that slot* to an
elected position.
This sort of Grandfathering would be the only thing to convince
me to change back to a yes.
|