[ga] Proposal for moving forward

[Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>]

Alexander Svensson writes:
 > it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
 > of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
 > about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
 > that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
 > GA main list instead of GA-rules.

General agreement DOES NOT exist.  I object in principle to the
illegitimate creation of these so-called "sub-lists".  I firmly believe
that both Mr. Corliss and Mr. Younger completely overstepped the bounds
of the "chairs" when they attempted to divide the ga into these
arbitrary "sub-lists".

The only reason for sub-lists is when a legitimate working group has
been formed by the NC.  The GA, in and of itself, or even in and of the
power of the "chairs", has not right or even a need to create
sub-lists.  These sub-lists have done nothing but cause trouble due to
the fundamental misunderstanding of the "chairs" about the role of the
GA within the NC structure.  They are attempting to make the GA
something it is not and was never meant to be, a body with power to
direct the will of the NC.  The NC decides its own path, completely
independently of the GA.  The only influence the GA has on the NC is
through working groups set up by the NC.

I am opposed to the notion of sub-lists.  The very idea diminishes the
importance of the GA as it makes small sub-committees more important
than the GA.  This is completely against the role of the GA as a
discussion forum.

/Joe
--
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