[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On 1/12/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Florence Devouard wrote:
> > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> >
> >> I think you got EC:s suggestion backwards. His idea was that the board
> >> would propose and decide, but the council would approve. It isn't
> implicit
> >> what would happen if the council would vote down a decided change in
> >> the bylaws. As I see it, the disapproval would not mean the change could
> >> not be implemented by the board, but it might usefully force the board
> >> to reconsider, and re-vote on it. This is a very usual parliamentary
> custom.
> >>
> > ok
> >
> > I think it would put a very huge pressure on the wikicouncil
> constitution...
> To clarify, I don't take any position yet about whether the Council
> should propose by-laws and the Board ratify, or vice-versa.  I simply
> proposed joint responsibility over the by-laws.  It would be premature
> to establish this kind of detailed mechanism before such a Council is
> even set up. The most that I can legitimately propose around this is
> that it be a priority item for its agenda when it first meets.
>

While I agree this is not the time nor the place  for this yet;

my point stands that in my opinion this would be the most
tried and tested method for apportioning power, responsibility
and accountability.

The beauty of a system where the council would approve
rather than propose, is that that feature would keep the
council itself "honest".

If the council got led ashtray into becoming a purely political
body directed into an interaction with the board, it would have
to contemplate the possibility that in the case of it *not*
voting to approve a board decision, the board could
capitalize on the estrangement of the council from its
real role as the representative of the communities, and
leap frog the council, by simply reconsidering, and re-voting
to affirmatively pass the decision, in the faith that it could
justify its decision to the communities directly (assuming
the council had truely lost touch with base).

I understand that where such a system is in place, it has
nearly never had to be invoked, which IMO proves its
efficacy.

To consider an arrangement where the council
could suggest resolutions, which would always be
subject to passage only by the board; I will say that
my own countrys parliament has a system which is
quite close to it, so I am quite aware of how it operates.

Let me show you them.

The way it currently operates in the Finnish House of
Representatives, is the floor of the house is immensely
busy in drafting bills, of which virtually zilch are passed
by the government.

The role of these bills is understood by virtually everyone
to fulfill merely the role of theatrical posturing by the
members on the floor.

I really don't think we want to go there.

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]