> On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Joshua Graham Pitcher wrote:
>
> > such a mechanism. I do not feel that any user should have the right to
> > appeal against decisions made by the executive as a group.
>
> I agree with this in part, but I feel that members should have the right
> to take an appeal as far as possible... in this case, to the membership,
> who elects the executive. An exec meeting could decide something either
> unfairly or without knowing the full extent of the story with a 2-2
> decision, with a chair exercising both a substantive and a casting vote
> (meeting-talk here). You could (yes, theoretically) then have unfair
> decisions on members made by two people out of a membership of 400+ (or so
> I've been told). Realistically, I do not imagine this happening in the
> near future. But it could... quite easily.
I agree with Alister. Joshua states that he doesn't think that there
should be any right of a member to appeal a decision made by the
executive. The executive may well be out of touch with the membership
(esp. on individual issues), and so if the appelant wants to do so,
s/he should be able to take the matter further... maybe something like
the 15 signatures required by the Union for an extraordinary GM.
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Meric pmeric@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au
pmeric@nospam.progsoc.uts.edu.au
pmeric@nospam.acs.itd.uts.edu.au
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by
legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being
stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence
is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out
automatically and without pity."
Robert Heinlein