Joe,
Speaking for myself--
I appreciate your restatement of our basic shared concern and objective. And,
I gather from your note that the board is still struggling with the "At Large"
representation issue--that the assumed "answers" are not a "done deal." In
fact, I noticed the following board resolution in Berlin relating to your role
in this issue:
AND FURTHER, the Board directs counsel to report to it before the
Santiago meeting on the legal implications of an election process
responsive to the MAC commentary.
Joe Sims wrote:
> ...The only thing you
> mention that might not be reversible is the establishment of a mechanism
> for the election of nine Board members by an At Large membership; if done
> badly, and the result is capture by an economic or philosophical (or for
> that matter religious or just mischeivous) minority...this part of the
> process needs to be done carefully,
> for it probably is not reversible by anything other than a governmental
> takeover -- which is, after all, what we are trying to avoid...A diverse
> Membership Advisory Committee spent several months studying this issue very
> closely, and came up with its best suggestions on how the At Large
> Directors should be elected; those recommendations are now being evaluated
> to see how they can be implemented, and more action will take place before
> and at Santiago.
Most of us entered this process hoping to emerge with a system which fairly
distributes access to the decision making process among the actual interests
affected. Some thought that could best be done through allocation of board
seats to "defined constituencies." Others thought the "defined constituency"
model arbitrary and rigid, and (we) urged a system of "proportional"
representation to better accomplish the diversity you correctly identified as
essential to fair governance. The SO/At Large director allocation scheme is
apparently intended as a "mixed" system.
In this regard, I could not find any reference to board action on the
"geographic diversity" proposal. Did the board perceive that both models are
threatened by single board seat elections in five huge geographic regions?
Does it perceive that such a scheme "complicates" every thing else we are
trying to do and would frustrate what you correctly identified as the purpose
of our governance structure--to avoid capture/(enable representation)? Are any
means of obtaining geographic diversity without jeopardizing other, more
meaningful forms of diversity under discussion? Is there a forum in which list
members may participate in that discussion?
