Thanks for support DPF - Re: WXW GA Director - Re: [ga] Reply to William Walsh

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

Don't worry.  For some of you I am going to let this idea of 9 GA
Directors subject go to the way side if it does not receive more support.

When I first proposed the idea of 9 GA Directors, I was responding to the
GA's call for a Membership Drive to enlist the general public and I was
responding to claims that the GA lacks funding.  I originally called the 9
GA Directors "GA representatives".  The term GA Directors developed later
when I realized the description I was giving the GA representatives was
similar to that as the role of Directors.

I am uncomfortable with having used the term GA Directors, however, the
term does better describe what I meant by GA representatives.

The GA Chair representative appears to need assistance in maintaining
direction, creating agenda and establishing GA positions.  It is normal
for the Chair to have a Board of Directors or certain close
representatives to assist with the direction of an organization.  The GA
is the most diverse constituency of all of the DNSO constituencies.  The
GA Chair should not be expected to single-handedly run the GA.  That some
of the GA active participants don't get this surprises me.

My position is that the GA cannot validate and count everyone's vote and
that the GA needs a body of representatives within the GA membership to
review and weigh the information the GA receives through the GA forum.
This GA body weighs information received within a set schedule and
determines GA consensus, and with this the GA body establishes GA
positions.  This expedites any contemplated voting process, in that the GA
body of representatives vote amongst themselves in the GA forum, and in so
doing they establish GA positions for the NC.

We have Danny and Joanna talking about luring potential members to the GA
through some Membership Drive solicitation program.  We have complaints
that the GA is not funded.  Without a certain body of representatives
within the GA membership to assist the Chair in managing information
submitted to the GA forum, the GA will be incapable of establishing valid
consensus and GA positions.

Another point I should make is that the GA cannot rely on counting votes,
especially when we do not know who is voting and it will be difficult to
end debate and begin counting votes.  The GA should rely on information
received and the GA should rely on the votes from a certain body of
representatives within the GA membership.  The GA should not rely on
counting all of the votes from the whole of its members.  The GA will not
accomplish anything worthwhile if it relies on counting all of the votes
from the whole of its members.

For the GA to function it will eventually need to employ a certain body of
representatives within the GA membership to assist the Chair.  This body
of representatives within the GA membership should be elected by GA active
participants.  There is a difference between GA members sitting idle and
GA active participants.  The GA reviews the performance of the body of
representatives every 2 months.

What I have proposed I suggest should be implemented as an experiment.
What I have proposed cannot hurt the current GA process and what I have
proposed may work if we can find 9 people who will stand behind the GA.  I
am beginning to believe that the GA does not have 9 people who are willing
to do more than chat.  Chat is not valid consensus.

I believe that I have said enough on this subject without more help from
GA members.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

DPF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:57:00 -0700, William Walsh wrote:
>
> >Hello Derek,
> >
> >There are no GA directors, and this body can work within itself, it
> >does not need to elect "representatives" to an executive board to get
> >results.
>
> My initial reaction to Derek's proposal was pretty negative but having
> thought about it further I believe his proposal actually has
> considerable merit which may be worth considering.
>
> Almost every organisation in the world has some sort of executive
> committee to co-ordinate and make sure things happen.  There is a
> reason for this model - because it works.
>
> Now once upon a time I might have suggested that the Names Council is
> effectively the executive of the GA but this is clearly not the case.
> The GA has no real relationship with the NC.  The GA does not elect
> the NC, in fact the NC appoints the GA Chair.  The NC has no
> obligation to help the GA function better even though individual
> members may be supportive.
>
> So perhaps there is merit in having the GA elect its own Executive.
> This would be an Executive with no *powers* but with responsibility.
> Of course they would have an open mailing list but they would act also
> as an agenda former where they spend extra time on considering what
> issues are upcoming, leading consultation on them, putting together a
> draft position paper and then having the GA endorse or modify it.
>
> These sort of things can be done by an group of 7 - 9 people far
> easier than a mailing list of 200.  And with a more shared workload
> than on 1 or 2 people only.  Everything would still come back to the
> GA for endorsement but in an easily debatable form.
>
> If the "Exec" fail to be useful or even worse a hindrance the members
> can be replaced or even the thing dropped as an experiment.
>
> However currently as a GA we are incredibly dysfunctional and upon
> reflection the idea of an accountable organising cmte/exec might be
> useful to improve our output.  I believe it is certainly worth
> considering.
>
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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