[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Committee proposal

On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 03:05:29PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > The problem with a an ad hoc group is the composition. We need elections
> > to get it the group be representative and to be accountable.
> An ad hoc group would most likely be composed of those people wanting
> to work with the issues. Depending on how the group is composed
> (closed or open membership) no one wanting to work wouldn't be left
> out.

Yes, but that would mean that it could have hundreds of members.
That's just not manageable.

> An election inherently means that some people wanting to work with the
> issues are left out (not always, as often in large volunteer bodies you
> struggle to fill out the minimum, IME).

That's true, but people who don't volunteer to serve can still later submit
ad hoc proposals. If their idea is good, it should still be accepted.

> Why would an ad hoc body be less accountable than an elected body?
> The body needs some kind of check to have any power, be it either a
> DPL delegation or a direct constitutional power, but in either case
> there should be a way to make the group accountable, even if they are
> not elected.

It would be inherently less accountable because people don't have any means
to replace its members. Should we really let anyone join, and then have to
convince the leader or do a general resolution vote every time we want to
replace someone who's doing something wrong?

     2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Reply to: