Re: [ga] Rules for new lists -- needed or not?

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 23 Apr 2001, at 10:42, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Lists need list managers, chairs, moderators, whatever you want to call
> them, to coordinate the discussion, identify common ground, focus on
> additional areas for discussion, move the discussion past problems that can
> never be solved, answer procedural questions, and in some instances handle
> decorum issues. The Chair should be allowed some discretion in handling all
> of those issues.

My suggestion would be to have the list members select their own list 
chair.  They should also be allowed to select the list monitor/manager, 
IMO.  In the past, we have seen WG's whose appointed chairs have 
submitted reports that do not resemble a list consensus.  That  has left 
a feeling of "no confidence" in the process.  Perhaps if the list members 
had the opportunity to select their own chair/co-chairs, the result may 
be more universally accepted.

Leah

> 
>     -- Bret
> 
> babybows.com wrote:
> > Questions for those of you that participated in working groups A,B,C,D,E,
> > and Review...
> > 
> > Did your working groups have formal rules?  If not, were there many
> > instances of decorum problems?   Did you manage to get the work done without
> > recourse to an abuse resolution process?  We need to determine what rules,
> > if any, should govern these lists.  Perhaps past experience can guide us.
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 


--
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