[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done.

From: home
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done.
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:01:46 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.12i

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:45:39PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
> The problem is that ATV is designed for electing one candidate from a
> list, I think, while STV can elect n from it.

Sounds right. I wasn't advocating ATV necessarily; but STV and ATV are
pretty much the same thing anyway.

> I'm not familiar with the TUC, really.  What is a composite?

A composite is basically a bunch of motions which you vote on. So voting for
composite A gets you motion A, B, and C, even if you only agree with motions
A and C and not B. Generally, it's a way of speeding things up at the cost
of people occasionally seeing it as a sneaky way of getting motions passed.

> The "meetings" (I do not specify physical meetings) where resolutions
> are made were for the executive, not the membership.  I don't know if
> you got that.

I kind of did and didn't, I didn't really connect the two - obviously, a
monthly meeting for an executive is nothing, so you can probably discount my
argument ;)

> > It probably depends on how resolutions are submitted. Generally, they should
> > be proposed by a member and seconded by another. [...]
> Agreed.  It's a very simple twit filter and probably worth doing, but
> this procedure should be specified in one of the first resolutions, I
> think?

Yep, sounds about right - the voting should be sorted and enshrined as
policy as soon as possible. That way, the way the organisation works would
be clear and transparent to everyone.

> It may be desirable to change such things later and I'd like to
> have as little as possible in the charter that is not the basic
> organisational structure.  Is that a worthwhile aim?  I don't know.

The charter's probably more about spirit rather than the implementation,
although that necessarily makes it either short or woolly. I think the FSF
equivilent of Asimov's Laws would be near enough a good building block,
since those are terms of reference under which we want to form this
association. The promotion and support of Free Software is our goal - it's
pretty much as simple as that.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]