Re: Re[2]: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects? I do !!

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Joe Kelsey wrote:

>
>I am going to speak up on this issue one more time.  The so-called
>"sublists" are nothing more than a place to carry out informal
>discussions, similar to "hallway conferences".  Unless and until there
>is a formal vote on the matter, they have no formal standing in the GA
>arena.  WXW is completely right and the "chair" is completely wrong.


IMHO, there's a difference between saying "the sublists are a place to carry 
on informal discussions" and "the discussion must be carried on on the main 
list".
I would favour a situation in which the discussion is carried on in a 
separate list ("informal" or "formal", I do not care, as long as the matter 
under discussion is debated among interested parties). Once there is some 
orientation, some proposal (not necessarily a consensus, even two or three 
alternatives are good enough), the results can be presented to the main 
list, and a debate *in a limited timeframe* will lead to the GA official 
position, if some kind of consensus can be reached.

What I think this process would avoid is the following:
- force everybody to participate also to the preliminary phase of each and 
every debate, even if they are not interested
- multiply the amount of e-mail to be read (and downloaded, if this is the 
way you access your mail)
- rediscuss ad nauseam issues that have been debated over and over again 
every time a newcomer restarts the subject on the main list

So, what I would like to see from, for instance, the "rules" list, is a 
limited set of alternative proposals that can be presented to the GA for 
general debate, not the full details of each and every possible posting on 
the subject. In my long experience of the GA from day -1, I am witnessing 
the same argumentations coming again every three to four months, and I can 
tell you already from one post what will be the following one, and by whom 
it will be posted.

Same for other subjects.

I understand the desire of some participants to have a wide audience to 
their opinions, but this desire is in conflict with the desire of other 
people not to be held hostage of debates that they don't want to go into 
details about.

My bottom line: specialised lists for coarse grinding, then (when some 
results get into shape) GA list for fine tuning (and decision).

Regards
Roberto



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--
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