Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG

[farzaneh badii]

Sorry against collecting what kind of information exactly?


Farzaneh


On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:21 AM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20180909/4a90765c/attachment.htm>