Re: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:55:27PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> William,
> 
> >
> >I challenge anyone who opposes my request to tell me that our Chair
> >and Alt-Chair have been effective, and to do so with a straight face.
> >Opposing the request because you think a poor chair is acceptable,
> >rather than seeking something more than simply acceptable, is
> >irresponsible.
> 
> What is irresponsible, IMHO, is to bring the matter to the NC when we are 
> struggling for demonstrating that we don't need NC's "adult supervision" 
> for the GA Chairmanship.

This concern, IMO, is misplaced because your model is fundamentally
flawed.  It is flawed because it views the GA and the NC as two
independent bodies, rather than as parts of the same body.  According to
the bylaws it is indeed the NC that is charged with "managing the
consensus process" for the entire DNSO, and therefore, it has the
responsibility for maintaining standards of interaction and so on --
that is, "adult supervision" is precisely its job.  The problem, in
other words, is not that the GA needs to demonstrate it's ability to
function independently -- the problem is that the NC has been remiss in
its job of managing the GA from the beginning.  It is the NC that should
have instituted list rules, not the GA.  It is the NC that should
establish policies for GA.  The "bottom up" structure comes from the
fact that the NC is *elected* by the constituencies.  The fact that
there is a representational gap in the constituency structure is a
problem, and that problem is not solved by creating a additional
structure in the GA.

> If you *really* thought that Danny would no longer be supported by the GA, 
> you should have argumented your points asking for a *GA action*, not a *NC 
> action*.

Nope.  In my view it is precisely the NC that should bear 
responsibility for this.  

> Try to start a straw poll, if you have enough supporters for your position I 
> am sure that the pressure will be such that a vote would be organized. But 
> if you get only half a dozen supporters, please put this issue at rest 
> forever.

The idea that the GA should vote on things is fundamentally flawed. 
Despite the appearances, IN FACT the GA is an unaccountable fluid group
of email identities, not a body of people.  The NC, on the other hand,
is composed of real people that we know.

Consequently, IN FACT votes in the NC are open and transparent in a way
that votes in the GA simply cannot match, and I would really much rather
have there be people doing votes, people we can accost at meetings and
yell at, instead of email addresses. 

> Incidentally, suppose that the NC will positively consider your request, 
> and recall the Chair, what do you think will happen to our request of NC 
> not interfering in GA Chair elections?

I personally hope that they ignore it.  According to the bylaws, they 
must ignore it, because it would be an abdication of their assigned 
duties. 

Kent

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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