I do not see how it is fair to have three highly controversial Committee figures and the very two Ambassadors who have proposed to delete the Ambassadors be a part of a a sub-committee that completes the process.

I find this to be in disagreement with this portion of the current text:

General Voting
Voting rights are primarily given to the elected Second Pride Committee members, as to make voting process go faster than by bringing in a large group of people.

The Second Pride Committee may ask or have agreements with Second Pride Ambassadors to participate also in general votes.

The Second Pride Committee may also ask registered voters among the general group to participate in votes.

When a vote of the Second Pride Committee is contested, the concerned party has 15 days since the vote to gather a minimum of 10 supporters within registered voters or Ambassadors, make a counter proposal and re-open the vote. Supporters within the registered voters must have registered themselves as voters at least 7 days prior to when the original vote has been contested to avoid abuse.

Modification of the Second Pride Charter: Must be made in agreement with the elected committee and the Second Pride Ambassadors, as they are the groups recognised to have the necessary experience and knowledge to exercise that function.

I've said all along to you Keo that I was all for this review and meeting about the charter, as I've asked myself to Anden several weeks ago to arrange a meeting as well... So far we haven't seen the shadow of a date.. When for other issues you get things done in just 24h...

EDIT: And please read the post below.

Last edited by Zack Preminger on Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:32 am; edited 1 time in total

I think my reply to Doc Spad on the Ambassador role deletion proposal fits here as well...

And I call the committee in this event to refrain from taking steps ahead of democratic agreements, which would result in only more drama like everytime this was done in rush and before we were sure that we were all on the same page..

And for the sake of Second Pride, please read the following:

Zack Preminger wrote:Well said Doc,

I think what shoul be clarified in addition to your post is that by charter the ambassadors, when not united, cannot stop the committee. One or two alone can only make their opinions heard and I think this freedom ofopinion should notbe censored.

There is a way the committee can be called back on their decisions, but that takes more effort and unity than a few people, and cannot be made just by anyone. Which means it's a failsafe but one that was effectively used only once, and since the committee itself agreed to come back on its decision it should be safe to say it's not a bad thing in the end when not abused. And so far it hasn't been.

I beleive Lemonodo's idea above your post is quite reasonable to reach and meet what you would like to see happening.
But censoring the opinion of others because they're not appreciated is not a way Second Pride should continue to follow any longer.

Needless to remind the committee is elected to ensure the happening of the festival and influence the future and growth (not change) of the organisation.
Why would any group of individuals be able to decide those org level changes? That was never why the committee was elected to do alone without others.
Imagine we delete the role. How would all the current chairs feel if the next elected committee was to decide to modify the full concept once again? And choose not to follow or listen to any advice by the people you are today cheering for their amazing efforts, and that all this was to be thrown away, disrespected and to be forgotten?

Perhaps you'd say that group simply benefitted from the reputation of the name that they didn't help build, and changes it to be what they wanted despite the felt need for continuity.
In that event I would be tempted to ask why they choose to run for office after having had all the time to read the charter and know how things worked if they were planning to be disregarding all of that. Why not have then simply started their own concept, their own name, and benefit from what they will have built and their own reputation to grow.

Second Pride doesn't belong to anyone and is purely democratic, this is why the membership, the Ambassadors and the committee are included in its charter. The charter was built not in any of those groups favor to give it more advantage than another. I beleive the committee group currently has enough power to be doing all that it wants regarding decision for their current year.

It is when one groups wants to make decisions about change, not for the year they were elected to run, but for Second Pride as an entity and on the long run, that the organisation protects itself. Because the charter that one group is continuously calling flawed was designed to prevent any such hijacking from one of the 3 groups (members, Ambassadors or Committee) alone to be making decisions that would favorise them over one of the other 2 groups in long term perspective.

I beleive we can see today that the charter is indeed working as it should. Serving only the interest of Second Pride not to be owned by anyone.
Nothing is stopping the committee from running SP2010 they way they see fit. It is because we see that they cannot make changes alone, without approval and agreement with the rest of the membership and the ambassadors that we should realise that the concept of democracy is working.

The reason why parties are getting angry at eachother here is only because decisions regarding Second Pride as an entity are being made or tried to be made without everyone's agreement or consent... And the issues at stake are not about SP2010 related items, but Second Pride itself. Which once again, even if it means making one of the 3 groups frustrated not to be able to take just any decision it wants alone, is simply Second Pride defending itself to remain a democraticly run organisation... I see no flaw in the charter about reaching this simple goal. One cannot go against democracy for decisions regarding the organisation as a whole.

The only flaw there is is in the collaboration regarding Second Pride business, when one or more individuals are not willing to follow the advice of even the Chairman of SP2010 himself, that is to work TOGETHER in this process and bringing unity to the group.
Then again maybe an example should be set first for the rest to follow.

NB: The democratic system on which Second Pride was built, in order to allow it to defend itself from being run by individuals or groups alone on the long run except for the years they were called upon to rule. Is a system that was based on the Swiss democratic system. But of course adapted for Second Pride since we're obviously not running a country here.
(Switzerland is located in the center of Europe and surrounded by France, Germany, Italy, Austria. It has been in the Top 10 richest countries in the world for years and still is today)

Source: http://www.democracy-building.info/switzerlands-political-system.html

«It is astonishing how little the rest of the world knows about the way Switzerland runs its politics. Even its next-door neighbors in Europe, though vaguely aware that it is a deeply decentralized country, do not really understand the other, more important part of the Swiss system -- the part that could turn out to be a model for everybody's 21st century democracy.»
Brian Beedham, United Press International, in a book review on Gregory Fossedal's The road to full democracy.

Switzerland is a small country located in the heart of western Europe, at the intersection of German, French and Italian language and culture. Switzerland has been multicultural in its own way for centuries. Democracy and Direct Democracy in particular, has a long, but not undisputed tradition in this country. Switzerland's unique political system is today world's most stable democratic system, offering a maximum of participation to citizens.

Switzerland's Direct Democracy is not the result of pure tradition and harmonic development, however. Much to the contrary, the very basics (decentralisation of power) and the unique instruments of Direct Democracy (frequent referendums and popular initiative) have been established through hard political struggle, including a violent Revolution in 1798, decades of rioting (1830's and 1840's: the term putsch for a violent overthrow of government is one of the few Swiss German dialect words that have been adopted in a large number of foreign languages ...) culminating in a short civil war in 1847.

*This section is for information only as to where the inspiration came to ensure Second Pride's democratic system that focuses on making diplomacy required in the group for decisions that do not concern only 1 year Term but the organisation as a whole.

Yes I take Pride in being a Swiss citizen and I never have hidden I was one, if your read to the right of my post it has always said where I lived RL. In Geneva, home of many World Organisations, Red Cross, UN, and where many democratic and peace treaties were signed.
Despite what some of you might think, I am not about war or quarrels. I live in a place were democracy is loved and cared for, and if I had not been this kind of man, for the two years where I was active on the Second Pride committee, I would have been able to try to turn this organisation to be my own or to be submitted to me or a group.

But I think no one here can say me or my co-workers did that. Instead we established rules that forced us to get out of committee at one point, and to let others humbly provide their stone to the organisation for their elected year(s). I have followed my life principle not to let myself be run by other men and to be able to have my voice heard when I beleive it should be, without refusing the decision that will be in the end taken, as long as it is democratic, I fold to the majority.

Second Pride has been given the chance to benefit from a similar system. You might have noticed in the text above that when speaking of the country it is pointed out that it multi-cultural and trilingual, still we manage this way to get along and not to force any of our 3 language groups out... When it's no secret we have our share of daily disagreements.

Second Pride is also multicultural, and the LGBT community of Second Life is even more !
This is why today I posted this, So you know where I come from and for what I stand.. You can choose to think differently, but is your own opinion really above the one of the rest? If I helped to instate rules that would even prevent my own opinion from being more important or overrule the one of others when diplomatically taken, why should yours have to benefit from that right?

Good day to all.

hit send before completing my response, so have deleted the start of it and am finishing it now.

Zack,
As the announcement clearly states:

Via in world IMs to Keokipele Ansar, 2010 Membership Representative, Eric Quimby and Capabilitytodd Elswit have also volunteered their service on this committee. It is the hope of the current standing Committee that the Ambassadors will decide among themselves by whatever means they choose who will serve as the two Ambassador representatives.

Forgive me if this is not clear, but it does not say that both Mr. Quimby and Mr.Elswit are seated on the Ad Hoc Charter Committee. I agree that it would be completely unfair to seat two Ambassadors who have called for the deletion of the Ambassador role. That is why it is the Ambassadors who should decide among themselves who shall serve as the Ambassador representatives.

Please note also that the purpose of the Ad Hoc Charter Committee

is primarily to examine the language of the Charter and recommend revisions to provide more clarity and specificity in areas where it is needed, especially in the sections regarding "Committee elections" and "General Voting."

and

it is also the charge of this Ad Hoc Charter Committee to incorporate and recommend changes regarding the mission statement, goals and objectives of Second Pride to reflect the aspirations and concerns of its internationally and otherwise diverse membership.

No where does the original post say that it is the Ad Hoc Charter Committee "that completes the process." Clearly the current Charter indicates that final approval cannot by the sub-committee alone; and again I point out that the original announcement post does not state that the Ad Hoc Charter Committee would have that power. The only "power" the sub-committee is granted is for review and redrafting to recommend changes to the Charter.

It also seems to be a foregone conclusion that a sub-committee that has not yet fully formed will rush in to delete the Ambassador role and function right out of existence. Personally, I have not publicly (or even privately for that matter) indicated a position on the proposed Elswit Quimby Ambassador Amendment. Whether you choose to believe it or not I have valued and continue to value the opinions and perspectives of ALL of the Ambassadors. And I would remind everyone reading here and participating in the Ambassador Amendment discussion that it was not the current standing Committee that put that proposal forward. Nor would it be the current standing Committee alone that could pass such an amendment. I, for one am closely following that discussion thread not only for the perspectives of the Ambassadors but also for the perspectives of the general members who are participating.

Regarding the proposed amendment, you quote one of your previous posts:

Needless to remind the committee is elected to ensure the happening of the festival and influence the future and growth (not change) of the organisation. Why would any group of individuals be able to decide those org level changes? That was never why the committee was elected to do alone without others.
Imagine we delete the role. How would all the current chairs feel if the next elected committee was to decide to modify the full concept once again? And choose not to follow or listen to any advice by the people you are today cheering for their amazing efforts, and that all this was to be thrown away, disrespected and to be forgotten?

I can only say here that with growth there is often change. And the call here is to review the current Charter and recommend changes not by one group alone but by ALL members of Second Pride.

Certainly the Ambassador Amendment could be taken up as a separate issue and be decided upon prior to any other Charter review. However, I moved to include it in the overall review because it is clearly an important issue, and if passed could clearly affect the outcome of any subsequent Charter amendments and revisions. You apparently see this as an outright attack on your work and the work of previous Committees. I can emphatically say that it is not! And since the Ad Hoc Charter Committee has not yet formed and has not yet made any recommendations it is unfair to assume that the "full concept" of Second Pride is being changed, "thrown away, disrespected and to be forgotten." It is because of the foundation built by the predecessors of the current standing Committee that it would like to continue on a path of growth and yes, change IF agreed upon by the current Committee, Ambassadors AND general members/membership at larg.

From the same previous post you state:

It is when one groups wants to make decisions about change, not for the year they were elected to run, but for Second Pride as an entity and on the long run, that the organisation protects itself. Because the charter that one group is continuously calling flawed was designed to prevent any such hijacking from one of the 3 groups (members, Ambassadors or Committee) alone to be making decisions that would favorise them over one of the other 2 groups in long term perspective.

I am sorry, but I fail to see how the formation of this Ad Hoc Charter Committee as outlined in the original post can be perceived in any manner as a hijacking. It clearly calls for participation by all three "groups" of the organization and the Charter is clear that such a Committee can be formed:

Special Committees
Ad Hoc committees, answering to the Second Life Committee and/or Second Pride membership through the Membership Representative chair, may be formed to work on specific projects. Ad Hoc committees are subject to all normal provisions of the Charter.

And near the end of the original post is the following statement:

All provisions of the currently active Charter are in effect until such time as a new and/or amended Charter has been adopted by majority vote.

In your initial response to this announcement post you quote the Charter's section on "General Voting" and "bold" a portion of it. Where in the original post does it say that the current Charter will not be honored in this respect? Indeed, the same quote also clearly states that "The Second Pride Committee may also ask registered voters among the general group to participate in votes." Charter changes in the context of this section of the Charter seem to be the prerogative of the standing Committee and the Ambassadors alone, unless you take into consideration the portion of the section that I "bolded." Gordon Nadezda's recent posts regarding the Special Election for Treasurer clearly show that the general membership/membership at large is intelligent and has an opinion about how the organization operates. Are we to exclude them from the process here? Are we to create a Charter that they can "read only" before it is put to vote for adoption by ONLY the standing Committee and Ambassadors? Mr. Nadezda writes:

There are approximately 213 people registered in this forum and only 26 registered to vote. Of that 26, only 11 are general members. That's not representative of the general SP population. If general members are going to be included in an election, the Committee should give members sufficient time to register. With more voters, results are better.

In another post in the same thread he writes:

Honestly, it makes me very uncomfortable knowing that this organization's Charter doesn't specifically compel and/or obligate it's Committee to advertise a call for voter registration. In fact, it seems to me that the Charter fails to promote sufficient transparency in at least this regard.

Clearly this new general member and other general members have shown the willingness and desire to participate in an informed and intelligent manner. The membership at large has a stake in all of this -- in this year's Festival and in the future of Second Pride as an organization.

Zack, at the end of your initial post you write:

I've said all along to you Keo that I was all for this review and meeting about the charter, as I've asked myself to Anden several weeks ago to arrange a meeting as well... So far we haven't seen the shadow of a date.. When for other issues you get things done in just 24h...

Being as this overture for the meeting was made to Anden (and others as I recall you saying), I cannot respond for any lack of action or scheduling of this meeting. It is really beside the point why that specific meeting has not taken place. The formation of this Ad Hoc Charter Committee is for the purpose of review and recommendation and is inclusive of all "stakeholders" by virtue of representation. Again I point out that you got the impression that Mr. Quimby and Mr. Elswit are seated on the Committee by virtue of their expression of interest; so again I point out that it is the hope of the current standing Committee that the Ambassadors will decide among themselves who shall represent them on this Ad Hoc Committee. I believe it would only be fair to include one of the two Ambassadors who have proposed the Ambassador Amendment. And certainly I welcome any Ambassador on the Ad Hoc Committee who has an opposing viewpoint. As I have said, I am undecided at this point as to how I feel about the proposal.

This is no doubt serious business with much at stake. There is not a person involved to my knowledge that does not think so. I think it is safe for me to say also that there is not a person involved who thinks this will be a quick process. In fact, I see several iterations/drafts of changes. And I see these drafts as being publicly posted for review, comment and discussion before a final recommended revision is put forth for any voting.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about the Ad Hoc Charter Committee's purpose and function and how the process is intended to work. I believe it to be in full compliance with the current Charter and to be a fair and equitable method for Second Pride to consider refinement of the current organization and its future growth.

Peace,
Keo

Thank you Keo very much for clearing this up. Very well stated. Sometimes, no...a majority of the time I really think our true intentions/meaning behind what we are trying to say via text is lost in translation or misinterpreted. I've recently came to the conclusion this very well may be the cause of ALL the recent conflicts. Someone takes what someone wrote as a threat, but if said person had explained it, the tone in which it was explained would have clearly changed opinion.

Modification of the Second Pride Charter: Must be made in agreement with the elected committee and the Second Pride Ambassadors, as they are the groups recognised to have the necessary experience and knowledge to exercise that function.

Under a not unreasonable interpretation, it appears there is no provision for representative deliberation such as proposed, nor is there provision for Ambassadors to select representation. If one notes the considerable controversy swirling about this specific proposal and many other issues, one could easily surmise the outcome of the Ad Hoc Committee is somehow stacked because three Committee mandated votes acting in team and one enlisted vote on this Ad Hoc Committee would carry, and while it may not "complete" the process as slightly misstated, it certainly can be said to further the process of co-opting the Charter. Therefore, propose the Committee and Ambassadors be seated as Ad Hoc Committee to Revise and Amend the Charter of the Whole.

I will repeat again that the purpose and function of the Ad Hoc Charter Committee is to review and recommend revision. Under the current Charter, the Ad Hoc Charter Committee does not and cannot have the power to change the current Charter on it's own.

I don't understand how this can be so misread and misunderstood. Nowhere does the announcement state that the Ad Hoc committee is empowered to change the Charter on it's own and clearly calls, in the end, for any proposed amended Charter to be voted upon by the current standing Committee, the Ambassadors and the membership at large.

This Committee CAN ONLY REVIEW AND RECOMMEND CHANGES.

ad hoc |ˈad ˈhäk; ˈhōk|
adjective & adverb
formed, arranged, or done for a particular purpose only : [as adj. ] an ad hoc committee | the discussions were on an ad hoc basis | [as adv. ] the group was constituted ad hoc.

And as I also explained, this whole process cannot be completed quickly and without general periods of review, comment and discussion by all stakeholders.

"Three Committee mandated votes acting in team and one enlisted vote on this Ad Hoc Committee would carry" ONLY a recommendation to take a revised document to formal vote. I honestly fail to see how this is not fair and equitable. And I fail to see what damage there is in including general members/members at large in a process in which they clearly have a stake. Indeed, Second Pride belongs not to any single standing Committee and not to the Ambassadors but to the International community of its general members.

As the 2010 Membership Representative I am smack dab in the middle of all of this and even I would not be so bold as to say I could easily surmise the outcome based on the process outlined. I am even unsure at this point where I stand on the issue of the proposed Ambassador Amendment.

I will bow out of this debate at this point and hope other Ambassadors and general members will weigh in and discuss this.

My concern is the Ad Hoc Committee determines the Question put before the Voters, in this case the Committee and the Ambassadors, and perhaps no other question related to the Charter will be heard. If for any reason the Ad Hoc Committee Question is flawed, then the outcome is flawed.

Thank you for this Keo; I know you've worked and continue to work VERY hard on this project and we're all really, really greatful and proud.

I think in part the problem is less political and more complications brought on by people thinking politically. I have observed from the beginning of the pride year a general hostility towards change based on fear of past events, namely individuals taking control of things and people feeling left out or unheard.

That was never my intention. Nor, I think, was it the intention of any of us on the 10 committee. I can't speak for them, but I believe we're working towards making this organization more accessable to people at large in SL rather than an elite clique. This is part of that process.

I'd also like to say that in my own experience, having worked with real life pride for many years to organize events, and legal action against large government bodies, we only worked on consensus, we co-operated because we had common goals, and we never ever worried about who was going to get credit for anything.

I'll repeat this: I believe the problems we are currently experiencing are less the fault of politics and more the fault of people thinking politically, when clearly we should be thinking about PRIDE and what PRIDE can do to become a truly community-based organization.

IF THEY FORGET OUR NAMES AND REMEMBER THE EVENTS WE HAVE DONE OUR JOBS!

Yes Keo I think it was good that you clarified your point. I beleive the problem came mostly from what Lemo just point out also.. But I guess it can't hurt to try this way unless others think it's unfair. Since the results will not be applied or finalised by this Ad Hoc committee. As for all the quotes you took from my text, they were mostly from my reply to Doc, as to explain what the vision should be for anyone who claims to care about Second Pride and not seeking any personal credit. And not meant to answer your topic directly but I thought it was worth copy/pasting here as I said.

And Rimpoche as usual you post yet another very good text, that shows how much wisdom you have inside of you, and with which I am in total agreement. As I am often for other things you write publically, let's just hope everyone can actually stick to it. And that we can actually witness people "walking the (great) talk".

I'm looking forward to see the work prepared by Keo put in action since it has been a few weeks that we had been waiting now. It is my hope that the focus will remain on keeping Second Pride a democratic entity that is able to preserve itself from abuse as it is currently the case.

Zack – Since I now seem to be at the focal point of one of your many ad nauseam rants about who is and who isn’t loyal, smart enough or have the “Correct” posture in their intentions to be a part of this body I wish now to take a little time.
At no point have I ever implied that I want to take down Pride or destroy the precious memory of those happy unified (huh)Prides past.
I want what I feel is a silly very silly distinction in membership titles destroyed.
I do not want to throw the members who are ambassadors out nor keep their precious knowledge and wisdom away from Future Prides.
If our proposal passes (and if you will note we requested that it be put up for committee consideration, general debate and then general vote) I doubt very much you will disappear or be silenced on any of your major concerns nor should you be. And if it should pass I'll be ya Pride will live on.
You of all people do not need a title Zack.
But I refuse to let one of your disgorging keep me from posting or contributing my opinions of what will make a better Pride.

In EVERY Democracy I know of if one makes a proposal to amend the Charter or Constitution ones does not then need to step down from Government.

Zack it is really quite easy for me to propose an amendment and be impartial on other important points in the Charter.

And the General Membership is really quite smart to in what they feel Pride should be
Or are you really proposing that I should step down as a contributing member of the Pride group because I do not agree with your ideas of what a TRUE Believer in Second Pride is?
If so, then……
before you drown me out I propose one more Amendment
Let’s create a new title and a new group of One
Grand Dowager Empress of Second Pride
Keeper of the Flame
Guardian of the Gate
High potentate of the True Pride Member
Long Live
Zack Preminger


Thanks for the moment
Cap Elswit

PS
For those interested…. great reading is the McCarthy House of Un-American Activities chapter of US History.
These posts are perfect examples of how demagoguery kills and silences and squishes opposition.

Thanks for this amusing post Cap...

I'm not sure where you seem to have understood that I suggested you should be stepping down or not participate. If you are refering to my comment about having only Eric and you as the 2 ambassadors of the Ad Hoc committee I merely mentionned it might not be fair, but I never implied neither of you should be on it.

If you are indeed selected to be on this Ad Hoc committee I'm confident you'll be able to show how you can refrain from mixing personal feelings towards me and the rest as you did here.

Thank you.

I will be happy to follow your suggestion and example Zack.