Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG

[Raoul Plommer]

It remains unclear to me, what problem are we trying to solve here, or are
we just making procedures because you promised to do so?

-Raoul

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 16:23, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well there is no doubt that the charter said the EC is in charge of
> setting membership limits.
>
> I don't know what you mean by legal. Under which law???
>
> It's  nearing the end of my term and I have many more things to do, this
> is not a priority. Either you can make substantive constructive changes to
> these procedures instead of just thrashing  them (by simply just removing
> the paragraph and say let's not set a limit) or we can leave them
> unapproved and forget about them.
>
>  It was not done during the past chairs terms, I don't think it will kill
> us if it doesn't get approved now either nor during Stephanie's. I had just
> promised procedures during my campaign, I wanted to deliver what I promised
> but I think I have done enough   despite the resistance and not much help.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 8:00 AM Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 01:21, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks a lot for commenting. I have now incorporated your comments
>> > improved the document and sent to NCSG EC for review and approval. They
>> > have until 21st September to review, make changes if needed and
>> approve. If
>> > they don't make major substantive changes, we won't do a second reading.
>>
>> >>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gt7vfXOl1RjTdh_iQd7E4yUjEiGez24jexNodQopgks/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> Looking at that now there's a lot I find confusing. To keep this
>> manageable, I'll pick just one now:
>>
>>
>> "1.Where an individual member of the NCSG also belongs to a large NCSG
>> member organization, the individual member may retain the individual
>> membership under the following circumstances:
>> [...]
>>
>> b. Where no more than 10  NCSG members who are members of NCSG in
>> individual capacity are also members or employees of the same
>> organization;"
>>
>>
>> How do you propose to implement this?
>>
>> With an individual applicant you could technically ask if they're
>> already members of a member organization, but I'm not sure that'd
>> be legal - membership in political organizations and the like is
>> sensitive information and asking for and retaining it is at least
>> somewhat problematic if not outright illegal.
>>
>> And you'd have to require them to notify NCSG if they ever join such
>> an organization or if an organization they belong to joins NCSG later,
>> and they might not even notice that.
>>
>> And you most certainly can't ask an organizational applicant to list
>> their members who are already NCSG members: there's no question that'd
>> be illegal. Perhaps you could require them to review NCSG member list
>> to verify there're not too many of their members in already, but even
>> that would not help in case one joins later.
>>
>> So we might end up in a situation where someone becomes ineligible
>> to membership without knowing it - indeed without *anybody* knowing it.
>>
>> So we'd have unconditional requirements that can't be verified even
>> when everybody is acting in good faith.
>>
>> Moreover, I'm not sure the rule in NCSG Charter referred to applies:
>> The conditions 1-3 under 2.2.5 are alternative categories, and it
>> would seem to be the limit given under 3 only applies to individuals
>> joining with that category, not others. That interpretation would also
>> make my concern above go away, as then the organization in question
>> would be known. If this was the intent all along, my apologies, then
>> I'd just suggest rewriting it to make it explicit would be helpful.
>>
>>
>> So, while I appreciate the concern behind this rule, I think it needs
>> more thought. As presented it's not really a _procedure_ either, as
>> there're no implementation details.
>>
>> Perhaps it'd be good to rethink this from that viewpoint: procedures
>> for the EC to follow, situations it could or should act in, and how,
>> rather than just conditions it should fulfill or enforce.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180909/f5b69bca/attachment.htm>