[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Election 2013

[Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza]

On the issue of languages clusters, as raised by Grace, definitely other
regions could take advantage of having two representatives that would speak
two different languages. Even Latin America, with Spanish and Portuguese
being not that much sort of far apart in terms of understanding, could take
advantage on that. But if we decide to go on with the two reps idea, apart
from the obvious advantage of reducing workload, I am having a hard time to
come up with a good methodology/criteria for the elections. Would we change
the bylaws to require that the two reps speak different languages? Would
that be applied to all regions?

I don't want to put the cart before the horses, but that is just something
that got me thinking about the advantages and the disadvantages of having
two reps based on the language they speak. I still have to give some more
thought about that, but it looks like a discussion worth of the time it
will certainly take if that's for the fostering of the constituency. Even
if we decide by the end of the that this is not the way to go in terms of
improving representation.

See you soon,
Carlos




2013/11/19 Nuno Garcia <ngarcia at ngarcia.net>

> Thank you Bill.
>
> I hope a discussion arises, but I need to clarify Jorge: NCUC is not a
> Kitchen, I've been in both :) so there is never the issue of too many chefs
> :)
>
> Bringing new voices to hear, at the most, poses additional coordination
> load on the Chair.
>
> And, I'll add another argument: having a double representation would have
> solved Tapani's problem, because the work would have been shared, in
> particular if the work is done in a voluntary basis.
>
> In fact, the only disadvantage I see is added coordination effort. Maybe
> there are more.
>
> On the positive aspects: better representation of real communities, shared
> work load (and increased work capacity), new people involved.
>
> @Bill, as Chair, can you please foster this proposal and take it to a
> conclusion?
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Nuno
>
>
> On 19 November 2013 10:55, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Nuno
>>
>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Nuno Garcia <ngarcia at ngarcia.net> wrote:
>>
>> I can't help to express again my view on things, as I stated them last
>> time we all met in Durban: I think that being a geographic area
>> representative is a task for two. I called for a change in the rules of
>> NCUC to integrate this view of things.
>>
>> If not for the reasons you call in your email - a too heavy toll on your
>> agenda, geographic areas are better represented by two elected officials,
>> mostly because some areas are so heterogeneous that one single
>> representative can be a not-significant choice.
>>
>> @Bill: can you please take note at this and bring this idea to the
>> relevant committee?
>>
>>
>> Doubling the size of the EC would be a bylaws issue, so I suppose the
>> group set up on bylaws revision would be the relevant place to consider a
>> formalized proposal.  But of course, it’d be useful if the general
>> membership provided input as well, as Jorge has done.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>


-- 
Diretor
Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade do Rio de Janeiro (ITSRIO)
https://www.facebook.com/ITSriodejaneiro
+55 21 3235-6315
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20131119/cfdabaa9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss