[ga] Re: [ga-rules] BEST PRACTICES in action

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Joanna,

This is very good.  And as long as it remains in the parameters herein mentioned
it is very helpful.  It would appear that through the process, without formal
vote, a consensus is actually formed.  If as Patrick says "just follow it
informally" then you have consensus de facto and no formality is needed.  I
believe this is why Mr. Lovell stressed that these are not hardened rules, but
good practice.

But as a student of the GA history I must caution that your good intentions may
very well be misapplied in the future much as the list rules have been modified
by practice to suggest rigidity. For instance the words "shall be respected"
have metamorphosed into "an unintentional over posting must result in
suspension".

So I ask that you make a more powerful and unambiguous statement within your
best practices that make it clear how they are to be enforced.

Sincerely,
Eric

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 7/17/01 2:09 AM, William X. Walsh at william@userfriendly.com wrote:
>
> > Hello Patrick,
> <snip>
> > You are FAR exceeding the authority you have, and you have even
> > misstated much of the support you claim, some of those claim they
> > support the INTENT or the SPIRIT behind the motion, but did NOT come
> > out and support your motion or its wording, much less your list of
> > restricted agenda items.
>
> It is not at all clear to what extent this "Motion" has support as a MOTION
> with agreed-upon wording. At least one member cited by Patrick in support
> has since expressed concerns in response to my request for DISCUSSION on the
> implementation of such a rule. Rather, it's best case scenario is that it is
> a PROPOSAL that has received sufficient support through DISCUSSION and an
> informal POLL that it has risen to the level of a MOTION that could now be
> presented for DEBATE and possible AMENDMENTS, followed by a BALLOT.
>
> In the meantime, it is not for Patrick to mind read the GA in terms of what
> he thinks is the best compromise for agreed-upon final wording, but equally,
> as the PROPONENT, he is free to make SUGGESTIONS for AMENDED wording, but
> they are just that, SUGGESTIONS. I put forward a SUGGESTION for an AMENDMENT
> also, but members have not yet DEBATED that wording, or been offered an
> opportunity for a POLL to chose between the various options. Therefore,
> while it has been RECOGNIZED by the Chair as a MOTION that has been
> SECONDED, it cannot be said that the final wording has been agreed and
> therefore that it is ready for a VOTE.
>
> In the normal course of events, we would now assess a requirement for a
> TIME-LINE of about another 3 weeks to complete the process, say one week for
> further DEBATE on possible AMENDMENTS, one week for a POLL to agree the
> final wording, then one week to be put to a VOTE of the entire assembly, so
> in 3 weeks time, the VOTE could be REPORTED and assuming it passes, added to
> the rules.
>
> This is BEST PRACTICES in action. Everybody knows where we are in the
> process. Anger of the kind expressed by WXW above would not arise.
>
> Unfortunately, since the DNSO Secretariat cannot oblige with a VOTE at this
> time, there seems little point in continuing the DEBATE, hence Patrick's
> request to voluntarily comply. (This seems a reasonable request, and as a
> mark of respect for the will of those who supported the spirit and intent of
> this Motion, I direct this response to the appropriate sub-list.)
>
> In the particular circumstances of no resources available for a VOTE, the
> choice now is whether to continue the process through to the stage where we
> can definitively say the wording is agreed, then forward to the DNSO
> Secretariat to wait in a queue for a VOTE, or we can defer all further
> DEBATE until such time as a VOTE can be taken, knowing that it will still
> require a further 2 weeks prior to a VOTE of the entire GA. My SUGGESTION
> would be to run an informal POLL on that question.
>
> I'd like to thank Patrick for the time he has taken to prepare an agenda for
> ga-rules. Any attempt to self-organize is to be commended in my view, but he
> has shot himself in the foot by calling it a PROPOSAL. A PROPOSAL needs
> DISCUSSION, without which it is a SUGGESTION and clearly, no agenda for
> ga-rules has been DISCUSSED and therefore it gives the impression that he is
> presenting it as an official announcement from the Alt Chair, thus raising
> allegations of exceeding his responsibility. If, on the other hand, Patrick
> had preceded the announcement of his agenda by first raising it as an ISSUE
> on the sub-list, thus offering the opportunity for a DISCUSSION, before any
> documentation was presented, or, by making it clear that the agenda list is
> a SUGGESTION that is open for DISCUSSION, (which is what I believe he means
> it to be), then there is nothing to object. Again, we would all then have
> known where we are.
>
> My SUGGESTION is that a sub-list agenda is an ISSUE that needs discussion,
> and we should get on with it. To that end, I would set a TIME-LINE of one
> week, after which we will know whether or not it's a workeable idea, and if
> so, have a fairly definitive list that we can agree is appropriate, possibly
> Patrick's list, or an amended version, and if necessary run a POLL to
> confirm support of various options that may arise. Once agreed upon, we can
> make an announcement to the ga-main list, thus encouraging further input to
> the agreed upon ISSUES that will be addressed here.
>
> Apologies for the length of this post. No time to spell-check or cut down.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" 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