[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Ray Saintonge]

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> 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.
I'm sure that we could all find good examples of what not to do in our 
respective national governments.  Canadian parliamentarians do propose 
meaningless "private members'" bills in large quantities, and I suppose 
they too could be viewed as posturing.  They are mostly ignored by using 
strict party discipline.  Limited amounts of time are available for 
debating these bills, and the government insures that enough of its 
members speak in support to make sure that debating time runs out.

My inclination would be to approach these details with an open mind, and 
in a spirit of compromise.

Ec