Hi All,


I just never fully understood why NCUC and NPOC do not handle their own
application process.


Why do people need to be NCSG first?


It would seem more useful that the NCSG where just an umbrella for NPOC and
NCUC to help coordinate the NCUC and NPOC leaders.

The present way of having NCSG members that are also NCUC and NPOC creates
a double representation that can be confusing, misleading and
dysfunctional. Am I clear with this idea?


I think the NCSG should not act like a stakeholder itself but as a
coalition of the stakeholder that make part of it, therefore, the NCSG
would just be the place where NCUC and NPOC community leaders meet to take
things up. If not, it seems that the decision made in the NCUC or in NPOC
through the consensus are not valued. It makes no sense that the same
members that debate and reach consensus in NCUC and NPOC separately are the
ones that debate about the same decision and reach a new and different
consensus in the NCSG. The decision of NPOC and NCUC should be considered
equal inside the NCSG and the NCSG decision should be a higher hierarchy
consensus that brings together the already consensus made in NCUC and NPOC
(a consensus of consensus in an upper level than the bottom stakeholder). I
believe than the current process takes away consensus from the real
bottoms, NPOC and NCUC, and brings a dysfunctional dynamic where NCUC and
NPOC voices, especially NPOC’s, are diluted for no real reason thanks to a
double representation of NCUC and NPCO members in the NCSG as NCSG members.


Just and idea, don't bite my head off!


Best regards,


Martín.

Martín P. Silva Valent
Abogado / Lawyer
+54 911 64993943
[log in to unmask]

--------------------------------------------

Este email, incluyendo adjuntos, podría contener información  confidencial
protegida por ley y es para uso exclusivo de su destinatario. Si  Ud. no es
el destinatario, se le advierte que cualquier uso, difusión, copia o
 retención de este email o su contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Si
Ud.  recibio este email por error, por favor avise inmediatamente al
remitente por  teléfono o email y borre el mismo de su computadora. / This
 e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
protected by  law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for
the sole use of the  intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby  notified that any use, dissemination, copying or
retention of this e-mail or the  information contained herein is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this  e-mail in error, please immediately
notify the sender by telephone or reply  e-mail, and permanently delete
this e-mail from your computer system.

2014-09-22 11:10 GMT-03:00 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>:

> agree completely.
>
> avri
>
> On 22-Sep-14 04:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > Which brings me to one technical issue I've been harping about
> > to various people privately for some time: I see little point
> > in maintaining three distinct member databases, when two
> > are (required to be) subsets of the third. It would be much
> > easier to maintain just NCSG member database and have
> > constituency membership there as an attribute
> > (of course still leaving it up to each constituency to
> > decide who they accept as their members, they just would
> > not need to maintain members' contact info &c separately).
> > This would make for an easy workflow for the three ECs,
> > one place for members to check their membership details, &c.
>