At 4:49 PM -0700 on 5/2/99, Alain Farmer wrote:
>DeRobertis : Collaboration shall be defined as handling the mailing
>lists, web site, and other informational and discussion resources.
>
>Alain : Everything above except for the mailing lists, for a while
>anyway.
Anthony: Hmmm... implied in the leadership of something is the responsibility
to delegate authority. For example, mailing lists to the MetaCard
folks. How's that for covering my mistake? <g>.
>Alain : Do you wish to lead both the Programming and the UI, DeRobertis
>?
Anthony: Yes.
>
>DeRobertis : These are merely nominations and other nominations may
>(and should!) be made. A call for votes will be issued when the
>discussion dies down, and no sooner than 1 week from today (Sat, May 8,
>1999). Vote will be by an election and any run-offs that prove
>necessary.
>
>Alain : Deadlines do indeed tend to galvanize action.
Anthony: The intent is not to impose a deadline but rather to insure that
there is ample time to discuss. If conversations continues to
occur through Saturday, the vote will be delayed ("when the
discussion dies down")
>
>DeRobertis : A person may vote "Other" and optionally fill in a name.
>In the event of an anonymous other winning, we've got a problem.
>
>Alain : An "Anonymous Other" is kind of like a vote of non-confidence,
>isn't it? In the spirit of a true democracy, I suppose we could allow
>for this possibility, to allow non-leading members to express their
>displeasure, if such a situation ever arises.
Anthony: I think's it could also be a vote of no governance wanted. And if
the majority does not want governance, let them not have it :)
>
>Alain : This is the type of thing we had begun discussing in the UFP -
>you know, the thread we called "Constitution". Who votes ? When do we
>call a vote ? Who decides the issue that will be voted upon ? How do
>we decide how and when to expel a troublesome member ? Will there be a
>peer-review process of the leaders ? And so on. Overall, voting is not
>necessarily the most fruitful approach to decision-taking.
>I prefer to
>arrive at decisions by consensus.
We all would. But often in the real world it does not, and will not, happen.
>In this regard, I feel that it may be
>premature to vote before discussing all of the above issues.
Which is why the vote will not be taken until discussion dies down.
>It is even
>conceivable that voting itself will be dismissed.
If someone wanted to, a vote could of course be taken to get rid of the leadership. I
believe only in government by consent of the governed.
