Re: [adhoc] how to preserve operability

Laszlo,

I appreciate your desire to strike a more moderate tone, and I
apologize if my frustration has been too apparent, but it is real--and
frustrated or not, I do maintain that as chair and in the absence of
other rules, I am within any understanding of the position to establish
a voting method.

Let me put the voting question in a different light, though: if
committee members do participate, then the entire question we are now
debating will be moot, because all four of us will vote, and matters
will only be decided by a majority of members. The arguments currently
being made against my method of calling these four remaining questions
only serve inaction, both by keeping us from discussing the issues on
which we must vote and by putting those who don't vote in a position to
keep anything from happening. If I accept these arguments, then I
accept that the inaction of more than one committee member can keep the
entire process from moving forward: under the circumstances, and with
plenty of evidence that inaction is a problem, it seems much wiser to
use a method that rewards participation, and that is what I have
proposed. If this seems unreasonable on my part, I can only reiterate
the sense of urgency that both Julia and I have expressed on behalf of
ACH, and posit that you might feel the same urgency, were you in the
position that ACH members are in. We must make headway on these four
issues, and we must do so by the annual meeting.

Happily, I see no reason why we cannot do that, as long as we are
focused in our discussion and realistic about how much time we have to
spend on each question. I have laid out that schedule, and I believe I
have clearly explained how the process will work, so that there is no
chance that someone who wishes to participate will be surprised by the
deadlines for doing so.

If the energy that is going into debating our methods of voting were
instead being spent on discussion of the governance protocol, I believe
we would already be well on our way to understanding how we feel about
that document, whether it needs changes, whether we can recommend it
for approval by our respective executive bodies. Therefore, I hope we
will not continue to debate the voting method, but will move instead to
discussing the matters on which we must vote. I have tried to launch
that discussion with a detailed and dispassionate abstract of the
issues that seem to me to merit discussion in connection with the
governance protocol, and I invite someone else to join that discussion.

John

On Apr 13, 2005, at 1:50 PM, László Hunyadi wrote:

> Dear John,
>
> I was already expecting to get into real business when your last
> message confirmed to me again that my concerns about voting (and, in
> general: about the procedure of arriving at an agreement within the
> committee) were indeed well founded.
>
> Although you were defending it, it is not good practice to choose a
> voting mechanism which, as I pointed out earlier, carries the chance
> of a single vote to be declared as unanimous. You still seem to wish
> to justify it by the necessity to keep to a timetable . By doing so,
> however, you accept as just a possible unilateral measure without
> considering its unwanted effect on a whole environment. This position
> is, in my view, hard to justify and, as a consequence, may eventually
> block future activity.
>
> As for now, in my understanding, a chairman is primus inter pares, not
> less and not more, who is expected to moderate discussion and, by
> paving the way to a moderate discussion, facilitate agreement. In the
> least desirable case, however, functional inoperability may become
> apparent, as may be the case with the recent lack of activity within
> the committee.
>
> In such a case, it is not productive to hint to a (theoretically)
> possible resignation in order to get everyone back on board or suggest
> someone to resign (as your words to Lisa Lena clearly implied). This
> is not the way understanding can be promoted. And building
> understanding is far more important for a whole future than to keep to
> a timetable. I see a traffic sign: "Construction ahead". A sign for
> every driver.
>
> 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 Wed Apr 13 2005 - 20:36:40 EDT