On Fri, Mar 19, 1999 at 10:12:07AM -0500, Nils Lohner wrote: > The current discussion is about the general purpose of membership and > its structure- we're not discussing voting etc. yet. Please keep this in > mind and bring it up again when we discuss the voting after the basic > membership issues have been decided on. Do you have any comments > regarding membership and the three scenarios I proposed?
I don't think that the issues are distinct. Usually, when there are distinct "levels" in a governmental organization the distinctive attributes of those levels are their roles in voting processes. What is the purpose of separating the membership into these various functional components? I saw this as an effort to create focused groups of well informed members that could carry out decisions on particular key areas without requiring a vote of the complete body of members. I was suggesting the veto action as a method for integrating the opinion of the larger membership body into the actions of these smaller groups. It seems to me that the mechanisms for arriving at consensus (voting, etc.) are the primary motivator for making functional divisions within the voting body. Does that make sense? -- ___________________________________________________________________ Ean Schuessler An oderless programmer work-a-like Novare International Inc. Silent and motionless *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
