Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 19/05 17:14 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 14:54 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 14:52 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 13:03 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 12:55 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 11:20 +1 Re: Register of Electors
Latest posts
- 19/05 17:14 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 14:54 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 14:52 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 13:03 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 12:55 +1 Re: Register of Electors
- 19/05 11:20 +1 Re: Register of Electors
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Register of Electors
-
I don’t think I’m owner here, are you thinking of Pether? Defintition:
Is this only about formalising us as members with right to be pat of decisions democratically?
OK, fine with me in that case.
+1
-
Check it out on google groups.
ATB,
GaleMG wrote:
> I don’t think I’m owner here, are you thinking of Pether? > Defintition: > Is this only about formalising us as members with right to be pat of > decisions democratically? > OK, fine with me in that case.
+1
-
Huh!?
Didn’t do this…
Must have been Markus.(?)
I can stay as administratrator if concensus is that I should.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> Huh!? > Didn’t do this…
I did a while ago as long as I do not consider my pass be secure enough to keep it working. And admin has a priviledge to remove group if he feels it right. Please, do not do that.
Anyway, now when you know it, you can talk to Eric :- )
> Must have been Markus.(?) > I can stay as administratrator if concensus is that I should.
No problem with that from my perspective. You have no special power, but to invite people, send group announcments, ban members and to check out others mail adresses and simmilar stuff I suppose you wont abuse.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
OK, I see now that Markus and me are the two owners. I wasn’t aware of that..thanks for the trust..:-)
To Erics message:
Put me in the electors list.
As owner of the group I can see that we have the option to assign different membership types:
Regular member – members can read the archives and post messages Manager – managers can approve pending messages and members and can change group settings
Owner – group owners can remove the group in addition to changing all settingsWhy just don’t use these categories?
All members now, currently 17 are to be seen as full members with the right to vote in any decisions.Is that OK with everybody?
+1
-
Hmh. I prefer this group be participatory free, so if someones to be a part of the first group he can be, if somebody else wants to create his own group, he can do it too, on the same top-politics.
In that manner we enable growth of this network and enable best principles win in open contest. If we create monopoly for decision making, than we do not have possibilty for any comparisons of principles which I find be not good thing.
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
-
-
-
-
Yes, we need to know who the electors are for determining a majority decision for a group of interested members.
See more details in my reply to Gale.
Best Regards
Eric Lim
MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote: I don’t think I’m owner here, are you thinking of Pether? Defintition:
Is this only about formalising us as members with right to be pat of decisions democratically?
OK, fine with me in that case.
+1
-
