[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [science-iwg] Key outcomes from today's meeting
|
The feeling expressed by more than one person was there are some
institutions that will not be able to pay the dues for whatever reason
but would be significant participants in other ways. It was felt their
full participation including voting was crucial.
I apologize if I am mis-remembering. Matt & Jay, I think you were the
ones who raised this? I believe there were others that agreed as well.
As I said, the group was split on this particular item.
Andrew
On 08/04/14 14:36, Torkild Ulvøy Resheim wrote:
I will have to agree with Mike. I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't see _why_ guest members should have any voting rights. I guess they will still be able to share their opinions, which is fair enough.
Best regards,
Torkild
8. apr. 2014 kl. 20:21 skrev Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
On 08/04/2014 2:17 PM, Andrew Ross wrote:
Consensus was not reached as to whether Guest members should have voting rights or not. A compromise was suggested to leave it to the Steering Committee to bestow voting rights or not when adding guests. I'm going to use lazy consensus here & suggest we do that... if you are NOT OK with this idea, please speak up ASAP.
I was not part of the conversation, so I don't know the rationale behind the debate. But as someone who has some passing experience in open source governance, I would say that giving Guest Members voting rights is a bad idea. Voting is supposed to be about merit and contribution. If you have a temporary and passing participation in a group I don't know why you would expect to get voting rights.
That's my $0.02 worth. Feel free to ignore me :)
--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223
