[ga] Re: [ga-int] Popular motions (Dragging in a proposal to fill up this space)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Since there seems to be no other initiative here, let's try one....
>
> The issue of getting a motinon balloted has been discussed on the GA list a
> number of times.
> At the moment, the Chair creates the motion text and generates the ballot.
> This creates a problem for certain motions (such as a motion to remove the
> chair, or other motions that the chair might not like).

  Indeed true.  However any motion regardless or what it may be should
be, after seconded voted upon regardless if the chair likes it or not.
Anything less is a form of gerrymandering that is inconsistent with
due process.

>
>
> Suggestion for a rules line:
>
> 1 A Popular Motion is a text to be balloted by the DNSO GA that is supported
>    by at least 5% of the GA Voters, or 15 people, whichever is the smaller.

  A interesting point or idea, but somewhat skewed.  If there are any
currently illegitimately banned GA members they have no opportunity to
weigh in with your suggestion here.

>
>
> 2 A Popular Motion shall be presented in the form of a message to the GA
>    list carrying the complete text of the Motion, the names of the supporting
>    GA members, and a request for the Motion to be balloted.

  Again see response to your #1.  In addition, such a suggestion as this
one
would also not meet due process standards as well.

>
>
> 3 A Popular Motion shall be put to a vote within a week of its
>    presentation to the General Assembly, unless conditions below happen.
>
> 4 Putting a Popular Motion to the vote may be delayed until a week after
>    the end of the vote on another Popular Motion.

  Why?  Multiple motions should be able to be addressed a the same time
frames.  Kinda like chewing gum and walking at the same time so to
speak.  >;)

>
>
> 5 A Popular Motion may be removed before balloting in the case of:
>    A - The declaration of at least 2 of the listed Supporters that they do not
>    support the Popular Motion

  Only 2???!!!  No Harald this is again a way of easily killing a
popular
and seconded motion without proper due process.

>
>    B - A Popular Motion with a greater number of supporters, asking that the
>    first Popular Motion be dismissed. Neither will then be put to a vote.

  Again no, both should be voted upon instead of neither in order to
meet
due process norms.

>
>
> Discussion:
>
> - Rule 1 should be easy. The numbers are rather arbitrary.
> - Rule 2 is intended to avoid someone claiming "popular motion" based on a
>    series of "me too" messages. He actually has to list the names (and under
>    rule 5 A, give those names the right to kill the notion).

  Define specifically your meaning of "Me too" messages.  If there is
support
given in a form of  "Me too's" than they are on record as supporting
said
motion(s).  They should than be part of the count.

>
> - Rule 3 should allow the secretariat enough time to do the preparations.

  Agreed.

>
> - Rule 4 is intended to avoid exhaustion by a group of 15 people proposing
>    tens of motions at the same time.

  Unnecessary really. Multiple motions should be able to be handled
in the same time frames.  In doing so, which I do all the time, lends
itself to more productive progress.

>
> - Rule 5 A is intended to allow supporters to kill a motion if they decide
>    it's better not to do it after all.

  Better would be to simply withdraw the motion entirely.

>
> - Rule 5 B is intended to allow a deeply divided GA (if it occurs) to avoid
>    a situation where 2-3 groups spit motions at each other continuously,
>    none of which have a chance of passing.

  This is really not necessary.  Such motions should be judged on their
merits regardless of the number of them and the time frames in which the
may be introduced.

>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> (PS: what I would really like is for one of the old "rules of order as
> adapted for electronic media" people to come in here with a proposal, and
> TAKE COMMENTS ON IT.....what is currently happening is just forging Lego
> bricks for the foundations.....)
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-int@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-int" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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