[ga] observations from the peanut gallery

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Very well, we've come to a situation where each of us must reflect on the
nature and purpose of our participation in the General Assembly.  What exactly
are we doing here?

I am not here to nitpick.  I am unsure if a mandatory pigeon-holing is the
answer (sounds like a rather Procrustean measure to me..).  On the other hand,
I do agree that the purpose of the GA is not therapeutic.  As it stands, there
are obviously disruptive influences which would impede the achievement of work
in this assembly.  One question I think we should ask is: Why?  Aside from the
common accusations, are there perhaps other reasons?  Speaking for myself, I
don't see a huge problem in subscribing to ga-rules for any discussion of
assembly procedures.  However, there is still the question of the rule-making
mechanism, which remains in the minds of individuals who maintain their right
to think for themselves.  After all, this motion is not simply about moving
the discussion from one place to another, or even limiting/suppressing it.
This motion has much more to do with how the GA goes about making decisions,
than is readily apparent.  Since there is no clearly defined decision making
process (or mechanism) in the GA, one can well understand how some people can
have a problem with the whole matter (especially those darned democratic
idealists...<wink>).

I think it is always better to encourage than to dictate.  Therefore, I don't
like the wording of the current "motion" that Patrick Corliss is championing.
In addition, I recognize that the issue is not simply about "where do we talk
about what", and I really don't see the harm in a public show of hands where
an ISSUE has generated enough interest to stimulate an officially "unofficial"
straw poll.  In fact, I think we ought to sanction a vote procedure of one
kind or another (specifically), as the stated decision-making
procedure/mechanism of the GA.  The current "rough consensus model of the
IETF" cannot be applied to matters of policy.  The DNSO is not a body that
deals with TECHNICAL issues, but rather, political and legal.  Last time I
checked, they still vote in democratic nations, both for elections and in
juries.  I am more than a little suspicious of ex cathedra decisions and
motions.  Chairs should not be pushing motions.

So, although I understand the desire to move the motion forward (and I am
desperately curious to see what the "substantive" issues to be henceforth
discussed on the main GA list will be), I wish to make it clear that all
support for the current motion is through a VOTE COUNT and *not* consensus.
Further, that it is a reckoning based on a small fraction of actual GA
subscribers.  I hope that in the future, there will be no opposition to such
VOTE COUNTS from the current selection of YEA-sayers...  Lastly, I wish to
state for the record that the carrying of this motion through the current
"process" will establish a precedent for the implementation of motions into
rules via a VOTE of participants, pure and simple.  My one follow-up question
is:  Assuming that there is opposition to this "motion", what would be the
necessary margin of victory?  50+1? 67%? what exactly?  Perhaps the Chair or
Alt-Chair would care to respond?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos


--
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