Re: [ga] Excess Posting Limits

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

Patrick and all assembly members,

  The real problem is not what is debated or where, but rather that
the imposed and illegitimate rules, most especially the 5 post limit,
is more trouble than it has been worth and limits discussion, proposal
discussion response, debate and general input to a point of being
self defeating.  This is the single, but not the only reason why
substantial progress and initiatives can be accomplished.

Alternate Chair wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:59:34 -0600, Earl Heather wrote:
> > just wondering if I might proxy my 5 posts (sorry 4 remaining posts)
> > to Mr. Lovell,who is much more coherent than myself today
> > regarding concerns about process with this motion - I'm real curious
> > what he will say next regarding this rush to vote ;>)
>
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:15:08 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > There's no rule that I know of that allows this, but I believe it should
> > work just like the law does in general: if there is no rule to cover
> > doing some thing, then one creates the rule by doing the thing. I am
> > therefore soaking up one of Earl's allotted posts, for which I thank
> > him kindly.
>
> Hi Earl & William
>
> I am sorry that you haven't understood the environment under which the GA
> is operating.  Let me say it again.  There are those within the GA who take
> every opportunity to divert the debate by insisting on formal adherence to
> the rules, procedure etc.  These state that there is a daily limit of five
> posts per person.  That, of course, should be handled by the list software.
>
> It is possible, but by no means guaranteed, that "official" posts from the
> Chair or Alternate Chair may escape this sanction.  This post is one such
> example as I am now over my own daily limit.
>
> Persons who wish to complain may do so through [ga-abuse] mailing list.
> The list monitors must then adjudicate the complaints.  Failure to do do
> then opens up another round of debate on the [ga] list.  Any attempt to
> shift the debate to [ga-rules] creates further opportunities to debate the
> "legitimacy" of the sublists.
>
> And so it goes.  Nothing substantive gets achieved.
>
> You may, of course, choose to ignore the current rules but that is simply
> feeding those who would undermine the process.  There will also be further
> debate that the list monitors should not be allowed to have *discretion*.
>
> For what it is worth, I thought William's further explanation (exceeding the
> posting limit) was well worthwhile.  However, it would totally negate the
> excess posting limits should one person be allowed to make TEN postings
> per day compared to everyone else's FIVE.
>
> If ten, why not fifteen, twenty or more?
>
> That's why we MUST afford legitimacy to at least the [ga-rules] sublist.
> I wish you could see that and simply assist in making that a reality.
>
> Best regards
> Alternate Chair
>
> --
> 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

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