Percentage Active Membership

[Avri Doria]

PS.  Just because check-in for this election is closed, check-in is an ongoing process.  There may be future votes on threshold items and there is no charter requirement for calling a vote at least 60 days in advance to give people a month to check in.  For example, should there be an appeal vote on an EC decision - and all EC decisions can be appealed following the prescribed petition process - it is my assumption that people would not necessarily wish to wait 60 days for the ballot.  

So I am still processing checks-in and I assume/hope that whomever is selected to hold this role next, will also take on this continuing task.

avri


On 9 Sep 2011, at 10:11, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for thanks.  I have made a sincere effort to do the work required to make this SG a functional stakeholder group and yes, it does take a lot of work that I have been generally happy to do.
> 
> As for the pattern of active vs. non-active:  I have not had a chance to do a study on this.  There have been a few suggestions that this be subjected to serious consideration. I suggest that after all of this election activity is over, that a small team work on understanding this issue and that they propose new methods for the yearly process of confirming activity.  The charter calls for a yearly process and especially since we have no dues, it does seem ok, to require people to checkin at least once a year, especially since there are several issues like charter changes and appeal of EC decisions that have voting thresholds based on active membership.  The charter all does not go into details on how things get done and requires that the EC, with consultation from the membership, develop methods for meeting charter requirements.  That is work, the work of translating the charter into a set of practices, remains for next year's leadership.  This year's process was an ad-hoc one I proposed and then followed.  It was obviously not as well thought out as it could have been.  Now we have experience to go on, and can correct or replace the process I used with another one.
> 
> A thought I might add.  This requirement to check for activity is a new one with the current charter.  Many of the NCSG members has been members for a very long time and may have fallen out of the habit of paying attention.  And while I did send separate email to everyone on the list at least once while reminding people on the list, it is quite possible that my email was consigned to garbage and that people are no longer reading the list.  Also some people were not longer at their previous addresses but I could find no new address for them, though I did put in effort to find them.  Many people only responded after someone they knew made outreach.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 9 Sep 2011, at 04:57, Alain Berranger wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Avri for this and for the elections page... lots of work!!! Is there any pattern in the active-non-active lists that would give us clues on how to improve the participation rate?
>> 
>> Best, Alain
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> For those who care and follow this sort of thing.  As of the Election cutoff on the 5th, 56% of the NCSG membership had become active.
>> 
>> It is my sincerest hope that whomever is selected to lead this group in the future (EC/PC/FC, Chair, and Council members) can find a way to raise the percentage of active participants much further than this in subsequent years.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> http://www.jumo.com/ict4dk
>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
>> Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
>> Vice Chair, Canadian Foundation for the Americas - www.focal.ca
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
>> 
>