[ga] procedure

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

The procedure set forth at http://www.bitshift.org/rror.shtml are good
procedures which can be adopted.  Then they can be modified as problems
arise.

Based upon my broad based survey of all working group, committee, SO, GA
list archives I found the most amount of argument time spent on two
subjects.

1. History: Basically how did something come about, what was intended
and who was responsible.

2. Definition: Entire threads get misdirected because the two sides
cannot come up with an agreed upon meaning of what is being said.

Neither of these two areas have produced positive results EVER!! Yet it
is what the majority of time, like about 85% is spent on. A review of
the last House Hearings and the ones underway lead to the same numbers
and the same result.

The other results are aggravation from the process leading to lack of
participation.  An interesting phenomenon is that the bitterness which
pervades so many discussions does not diminish the activity, but it does
narrow the participation.

My conclusion at this point is that before moving on and establishing
set rules and procedures, as in agreed to histories and definitions,
each group simply appoint marshals for both of these areas.  Elect your
internal chair and they appoint their marshals.  Just like the old west,
before the laws could be written down that would cover the situations,
the elected mayors would simply hire marshals to keep the peace.
Of course the marshal would just say ok gentlemen lets take this off
list and we will agree on moving forward before getting back on list. No
problem the dissenter gets to post one objection to the marshals
position but then we move on.

Sincerely,
Wyatt Earp

--
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