Re: [ga] Point of Order

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> First, I couldn't find any mention of what a Point
> of Order is, insofar as it relates to the GA. Is such
> a rule written down somewhere, even by a record of
> past consensus? If not, then isn't a Point of Order
> a dev/nullity?

From an upper case perspective, quite likely. The fact is thought that
William has raised a substantive point about the validity of the motion from
a bylaws perspective. The options at this point, as far as I can see them,
is that Thomas can rule on William's "observation" (which would then require
Jamie, or another supporter of the motion to rephrase the proposal ), or,
William's point can be taken at face value and worked into the motion. The
third option is that the proposal can continue towards a vote in the face of
what are likely reasonable "constitutional" obstacles and lose all hope of
carrying any weight or credibility.

I for one would not vote on this proposal until such time that a) the
question is modified to fit the scope of the GA as William has described it
or b) it includes self-defeating/promoting language describing some sort of
a consultation with the ASO and PSO. My preference would be that the GA
actually engage in some cross-constituency work, but I fear that this would
not be controversial enough to engage the current membership.


> Fourth, if we aren't using Robert's, or others', rules,
> it seems to me a Point of Order may be safely ignored.
> If OTOH we are, even roughly, using Robert's Rules, then
> I can't make points about Points of Order and this email
> may be safely ignored. -g

Which, also speaking from an upper case perspective, is why (at least to my
understanding) the GA has never adopted the rules of order - they are really
tough to make work via email.

-rwr


--
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