Procedures/Individual/organizations membership at NCSG

Sun Sep 9 09:32:53 EEST 2018

Raoul

Official representatives of organizations should not be individual members.
We need that rule in place. Are you against this rule?

Farzaneh

On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:31 AM Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think all we need, is a guideline that says: "NCSG members can vote only
> once per election" and implement a solution that eliminates double voting.
> Meddling with membership is entirely unnecessary.
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 17:26, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There were a couple of other orgs in the same situation some agreed to
>> not vote as individual members some did not.
>>
>> In case of agreement that official reps of orgs should not be individual
>> members, we can just pick the last part of these procedures
>>
>> 1. If an individual member becomes the official representative of his/her
>> organization at NCSG, s/he should move to the category of organizational
>> members altogether and inform the EC about the recategorization by sending
>> an email to the chair of NCSG. The individual membership status will not be
>> valid after receipt of such letter.
>>
>> 2. Each year the NCSG chair should make sure that an individual member
>> represents no organization by checking the “check-in” form.
>>
>> 3. In case of dual membership, the NCSG chair after informing the NCSG EC
>> will notify the member of the conflict and requests the member to retain
>> one membership, either as the official representative of the organization
>> or as an individual member.
>>
>> 4. If the chair or EC finds out that a member is an individual member of
>> a member organization, they can start reviewing the individual membership
>> of the member in accordance to these procedures as well as the
>> recategorization procedures.
>>
>> Someone anonymous said in the doc that paragraph 4 is prone to policing.
>> I have no problem removing it.
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 10:18 AM 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/20180909/6559524b/attachment.htm>