On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
If this were the case, establishing any sort of organization with organizations as members and some sort of decision-making authority would generally be close to impossible. If there is disagreement in certain areas among the board, the representative's mandate should just exlude that topic area. That means, he can participate in some discussions in a binding way, in others only in an advisory/consultative manner.
Correct. Which is fine as long as no decision is made during the general meeting with all chapters... :-(
I don't quite follow. I suggested an exclusion by topic. So some decisions they will participate and vote, others they will not. It entirely depends on what authority they get from their board/chapter.
Sure. The question is one of fairness: is it fair for some chapters to send five delegates (i.e. voices in discussion) when others can only afford to send one?
LOL.
Is that fair that some participants are fluent with English and others are not ? Is that fair that some participants have a loud voice and others a weak one that can not float over the general noise ? Is that fair that some participants are easy and outgoing, whilst others are rather discreet and shy ? Is that fair that a very well developped chapter has only one voice to elect a member whilst a brand new little chapter also has one ?
There is no fairness in the world Seb, only an approach of fairness :-)
No need to belittle my point. I was talking about an approach to fairness that involves giving each chapter as fair a voice as is possible. Like above, some compromise needs to be made. Having each chapter choose two representatives is such a compromise.
Sebastian