Re: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

[vze25hmr@mail.verizon.net]

I agree

-George Kougias


However I would add that this consensus is lacking some stuff.
How long does one have to agree or disagree?
How will these numbers (yes' and no's) be used?

Interestingly enough I sent an email to the GA which never made it here
(for whatever reasaon, no implications are being made here) I'll repeat it
here:

------------------quote----------------
My suggestion: Ask for a consensus.  Simply post the letter in question,
and ask, is there a consensus for or agianst the draft. It seems simple
enough for me, include a time restriction 3,4,7 whatever days.    Then
add to the letter with the number of yes' vs no's -

if more yes' it moves forward, if more no's it doesn't.

If the draft moves forward to help clear the what constitutes a consensus
question - include the number of  yes' and no's that were given in any
document that is written.
Thus letting the people that read the document to decide for themselves
what the consensus is.

Also, I believe a consensus (official consensus) should be called by the
GA chair.
(just my opening) so we don't have two or more members asking for a
consensus.

George Kougias

ps not stating for or agianst here officially, but am leaning toward, not
yet decided myself.
--------------------------------------
Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
> > Registering or not registering your vote is not our
> > responsibility.
>
> While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
> all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
> clear and visible subject, like:
>
>         CONSENSUS?  <topic>
>
> and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
> objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
> are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
> documented.
>
> While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
> legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
> situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
> rough result should be produced.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--------------unquote------------------


"PMIW, Ken Stoen" wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stoen [mailto:Ken@orion.pmiw.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
> To: Thomas Roessler; owner-ga@dnso.org
> Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
> rule
>
> Hi
>  Let us cut to the chase here.
> Consider this a call to the list.
>
> A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue:
>
> 1) The newly elected board members should take
>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
>
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>    resign.
>
> Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
>
> Ken
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Thomas
> >Roessler
> >Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM
> >To: William X. Walsh
> >Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; ga@dnso.org
> >Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule
> >
> >
> >On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
> >> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
> >> responsibility.
> >
> >While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
> >all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
> >clear and visible subject, like:
> >
> >       CONSENSUS?  <topic>
> >
> >and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
> >objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
> >are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
> >documented.
> >
> >While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
> >legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
> >situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
> >rough result should be produced.
> >
> >--
> >Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html