Re: [adhoc] majority vote

Laszlo, and fellow committee members:

I understand that it is important to avoid lack of confidence and,
Laszlo, I appreciate your participation in voting, and even in taking
issue with the process by which a decision was declared. However, in
the absence of a declared protocol for voting, I can't see who else but
the chair should establish and state the rules that govern voting, and
I point out that no one objected to either the schedule or the rules
when the voting issue and the voting period was set out in the first
place, though there was ample time to do so before the vote itself was
actually called.

The suggestion that we should now begin to deliberate and vote on the
method of voting, before we can proceed to any of the things that we
actually must decide, leaves me feeling that I am the only one of the
four of us who feels any urgency here. So, let me make my position
clear, to avoid misunderstanding or misinterpretation: if we do not
achieve at least our four stated goals (a vote by both executives on
the governance protocol, a vote by both executives on the conference
protocol, the naming of a program chair for 2006, and a vote by the
steering committee on the admission of COCH-COSH) by the time (two
months from now) that we meet in Victoria, I will resign as chair and
member of the steering committee, on the grounds that I have been
unable to fulfill the responsibilities generally delegated to the
Committee by the ACH and ALLC executives and specifically assigned to
me by the Committee itself, in its conference call detailed at
http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/ifdish-sc.03-15-05.html.

As to voting method, if a week of deliberation followed by a week for
voting, followed by a tally of the majority of votes cast does not seem
like a fair, open, and sensible method of proceeding, given our past
history of inaction, then I honestly can't think of a better one,
especially with the time constraints we are now under. I could review
the history of missed deadlines and postponements that has attended our
process so far, but I think my time, and that of the committee, would
be better spent on the work we have ahead of us.

I understand that we all lead busy lives: in my current position, I may
have a fair claim to be as busy as anyone on the Committee, so I do
know that it is difficult to make time for the things that we have to
do--but we still have to do them. A system that allows
non-participation to halt the process is a bad idea. Unreasonable
terms for participation would also be a bad idea, but I don't think I'm
proposing unreasonable terms. Bear in mind that for at least three of
the four things that we are going to be voting (the exception being the
program chair) there has already been considerable discussion. The
changes to the governance protocol are those suggested by the ALLC,
with a couple of additional changes suggested by Harold and me,
following our careful review of the draft in London a couple of weeks
ago. Changes to the conference protocol are those suggested by Harold.
  Admission of COCH-COSH seems to have been accepted in principle by
both governing boards, based on the conversations that have been
reported to me so far, and I would be surprised to find strong
opposition to it in the Steering Committee.

If people choose to participate, a week seems like enough time to have
a discussion prior to a vote, and another week time enough to mull,
caucus, or continue discussion if necessary before voting. If people
choose not to participate, I submit that no amount of time is enough.
We are a small enough voting group that non-participation can easily
hamstring us, and prevent any progress. I think the issues before us
are familiar enough, the time short enough, and the need for action
urgent enough to justify the procedure I stipulated in the first vote,
for these four remaining issues to be decided between now and June.
If, as part of the discussion of the governance protocol, we would like
to assert a different method of voting for the steering committee in
the future, I am happy to discuss that and put forward such a proposal,
and once that protocol is approved by both executives, I am happy to be
governed by it, but at this interim stage of the process, I do call
chair's prerogative, in the absence of stated rules, and in order to
make sure that we complete our work on time.

So, let us begin the discussion of the governance protocol, aiming to
end discussion by, shall we say, next Wednesday. I have included a
paragraph on Votes (fleshing out Laszlo's suggestion) in the marked-up
document you will find in the left-hand frame at:

http://www3.isrl.uiuc.edu/~unsworth/adhoframe.html

the right-hand version is the older one prepared in May 2004 for our
meeting in Sweden. Because this post is long enough already, I'll send
a separate one setting out what I think are the main points needing
discussion in the governance protocol.

Meanwhile, I would be glad to hear those who abstained from the last
vote say whether the outcome contradicts their preferences, and I do
certainly encourage full participation in this next discussion and
vote.

John

On Apr 12, 2005, at 2:00 PM, László Hunyadi wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> you are right, we have not made it clear in the governance protocol
> how voting should be made. From this, however, it does not follow that
> (a) the chair should state the rules and (b) the rules (whatever they
> are stipulated) cannot be altered. I strongly support discussion and
> mutual understanding in order to avoid misunderstanding,
> misinterpretation, and lack of confidence which any unilateral step
> might create. I think we should excercise a lot of restrain if we
> really wish to achieve the goals envisaged in the past years. My
> objection to the assumption that majority vote was achieved by 50% of
> the votes is well founded: if we proceed following this logic, a
> single vote can decide an issue in the absence of any further votes. I
> am pretty confident nobody wants such a situation.
>
> The fact that I have been pretty active in the discussion process may,
> as I hope, give my words some credibility and you will take them as a
> sign positive about our common goal and an expression of some worry
> about and for our future. The regrettable lack of sufficient
> responsiveness should prompt us to encourage participation and
> dialogue before resorting to measures unsupported by the (at least
> virtual, if not active) majority.
>
> Since I believe there is nothing in the governance protocol how
> majority vote is to be calculated, let me suggest the following:
>
> "Majority vote means at least three out of the four votes."
>
> I hope we can vote on this as soon as possible, but I also hope that
> it will be preceded by a real discussion.
>
> Having said all this, I hope you and the rest of the committee as well
> as all on the list are convinced that I share our main goals and that
> I share some of your worries. However, I do not want to sacrify these
> goals by making decisions without gaining the much needed support of
> all concerned.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Laszlo
> _______________________________________________
> adhoc mailing list
> adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc

_______________________________________________
adhoc mailing list
adhoc_at_lists.village.Virginia.EDU
http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/adhoc
Received on Tue Apr 12 2005 - 17:02:12 EDT