Re: [ga] Precedence/ GA Structure

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Let me say I agree with Eric that the rfc's he cites below are examples
of the kinds of organization needed to carry out votes.  Those
who may
have been lurking over what's going on in the IDNO right now might
wonder whether its procedures might have been helped by haveing such
a set of unambiguous rules. However, one must not mix apples and oranges
here.

Whether one is referring to "best practices" generically, or the Best
Practices that Joanna Lane and I have been working on, these have
to do with reaching decisions on issues, not candidates for office.
Although both carry out a vote, a vote on an issue is not an election.

That said, the principles that the RFC's below exhibit should likewise
be exhibited in any Best Practices procedure dedicated to the question
of how to reach consensus on issues, and once Joanna and I manage
to overcome some personal hurdles and get the first complete "volume"
published, it will probably be worthwhile to take a look at them with
a view towards whether a BP v 2.0 might be better.

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

I would think that we should adopt some adaptation of these rules for
the GA.

They were really quite well worked out.  They could easily be adapted to
our necessary working group models.

I know they are only rfcs' but I think they are good.  I think they
could also work for the TFs and be worked into any best practices.

They certainly could guide us in this deletion and transfer discussion.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1600.html

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2727.html

Sincerely,
Eric
--
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