Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG

[Raoul Plommer]

Probably even the GDPR is against collecting this kind of (organisations'
memberships) information - paranoia isn't a valid reason for hoarding
unnecessary data of people.

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 17:18, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I'm quite confident we don't need to worry about this kind of
> takeover, for it'd be identified in the NCSG EC, when we were accepting
> them as members. I'm interpreting the guideline as the EC is free to come
> up with a adhoc restriction, if this kind of takeover really starts to
> happen, which I doubt it will.
>
> Instead of restricting membership, we should cross check members' names so
> that nobody gets to vote twice. One individual should only have one vote,
> or in case of also being the Designated Representative for an organisation,
> should only be voting once, with the organisation's mandate, not as an
> individual. I think me and Collin were the only ones who were able to do
> this in the last election, which had zero competition beyond the nomination
> period, so no harm done this time around. This I do agree with - even the
> possibility of double voting should be eliminated.
>
> Like Tapani says, membership of organisations is sensitive information and
> can't be monitored anyway. I wouldn't be entirely gobsmacked if asking that
> in a form would actually be illegal in Finland.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 16:55, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>  we discussed on the mailing list. The individual members could become
>> official representative of their organizations at NCSG and get to vote
>> twice. That should not happen.
>>
>> Another problem which was raised when we were discussing this was that
>> what if an organization gets its all 20 members become ncsg members and
>> vote during the elections. Charter says EC can set membership limits for
>> organizations.
>>
>> In this document I tried to solve both of the problems.  But if there
>> should not be membership limits ( which Is fine with me) there has to be
>> definitely an additional rule That prohibits individual members to be
>> official representatives their organization at ncsg. Either they can choose
>> to be individual members and additional members of their org or they can
>> drop the individual membership.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 9:43 AM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180909/4ce757f2/attachment.htm>