On Oct 13, 2009, at 20:35, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Simon Phipps <webmink at sun.com> wrote: >> >> However, it's completely appropriate for the community to expect >> that every >> collective is using criteria that set an equivalent benchmark for >> "substantial" everywhere. It's the OGB's responsibility to police >> that, and >> to have the authority to withhold Electorate status from a >> collective should >> it set the line too low. Right now I believe section 1.4 has it >> about right >> in "weight"and if any correction is needed it is in wording, not in >> the >> shape of the overall process. > > Not at all. It's expected that each collective manages its own > affairs and > awards contributor status to fit its own needs; I would expect those > criteria to vary widely, and they should be allowed to.
Indeed. There has to be a limit, however. > > I've understood that a fundamental principle of the new constitution > was > to separate community and collective governance. Are you saying that > we should abandon that principle? If so, that's a major change in > direction > that needs to be thoroughly discussed. No. I am saying that total, unaccountable independence is antithetical to community and cannot be allowed. Independence with accountability. What exactly is the problem with that? > > The fundamental problem with getting collectives to award electoral > rights > based on their local contributorship is that it overloads roles in > incompatible > contexts, and we've spent a lot of time ensuring that that doesn't > happen.
