[CCWG-ACCT] Legally a single member, but cross-community when 20 votes wouldn't suffice
isolatedn at gmail.com
Wed Jul 29 18:39:41 UTC 2015
There are continuing debates over the allocation of votes across ACs/SOs.
What if we momentarily step aside from the title of the proposal -single
member- and examine the underlying notions? The idea of a "single member"
is a creative idea of LEGAL design of the corporation. Let us step aside
from the paper work for a moment.
Viewed with understanding, the underlying idea is that of a cross community
process. The 20 votes (or 25 or 30) proposal is a positive proposal to
bring summary or representative positions from each constituent and further
reduce it to a single position. It would work, but there is merit in
various concerns expressed about the possible distortions in the use of
votes - ALAC wouldn't get the next summit or GDD wouldn't get the next
conference, or worse, both would happen by alternative accommodation !! The
Community could excessively challenge the Board and Executive with its veto
If these concerns are valid in any degree, then we could find a solution by
going beyond 20 or 30 votes on matters of larger significance as well as on
matters not resolved by 20 votes. The 20 votes could be deemed a sort of
Executive Committee votes, good enough to express trust in, endorse or
oppose most Board decisions or Executive actions, but when larger issues
are to be decided, whether or not there is a stalemate, it ought to be
elevated into a wider cross community process, even allowing ALAC members
to vote along GAC positions and vice versa, unlike the party-whip positions
as in a Parliament, before being reduced to the position of a single
The design could be drawn up, or even a foundation laid in this stream to
be more expertly shaped during WS2.
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community