Subject:
|
Re: Self Organisation (Was: Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Feb 2000 00:44:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1746 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > What about a good old-fashioned vote by the 200+ paid members of LUGNET.
> > Might this not be a good time to excercise some democracy?
>
> No, the idea behind the council is to vest or entrust the handling of • delicate
> situations (which often require a lot of time) to a larger (but not so • large
> that it becomes stifled) group of trusted individuals, in the hopes of
> offloading admin time/workload (primarily of the 'judicial' nature) -- and
> also coming up with hopefully more equitable and fair solutions -- due to a
> better mixture of viewpoints and issue-interpretations. Involving everyone
> in everything would be unwise, just as it would be unwise to have popular
> votes on day-to-day legislative issues in the U.S. Senate or House, for
> example. That's why we have Senators, Representatives, Judges, and so • forth
> -- because they're specialists in their particular area. The average • citizen
> of the U.S. doesn't have the time or desire to become a specialist.
I think Allan was suggesting voting on who the council members were. This
might be reasonable, but perhaps is best handled the way many organizations
handle voting their officers, in that the previous board (in this case
Todd), presents a recommended slate, and then further nominations are
accepted. The idea of this of course is that the presented slate consists of
people who have been carefully considered for their qualifications, but you
open nominations because you may have missed someone, but ultimately, anyone
nominated is going to have a higher hurdle to overcome to be accepted.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
82 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
