Re: [ga] Motion # 1

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

> ross--
>
> i appreciate the force of your argument, but i don't think the
> history of GA activities bears it out. if in fact jamie's pro-
> posal ends up initiating a torrent of arbitrary votes then the
> GA can deal with the problem -- which is that torrent, not ja-
> mie's proposal. i don't think the way in which this proposal's
> been advanced breaks in any substantial way with past GA move-
> ment; so invoking procedures that haven't been in force so far
> as a way to sideline it seems tenuous. and it seems even more
> tenuous to invoke speculative consequences as a justification
> for sidelining it. the best way to deal with it is to vote on
> its substance.

Its not about sidelining it - if that were the point of my  efforts, I would
simply put forward a motion requesting that the GA disband itself. I'm sure
that we could get ten takers on that one and force it through in a similar
way.

This is all about rough consensus and running code - unfortunately, no one
seems to pay much attention to anything but "their" code, "your" input be
damned. An odd way to achieve consensus on the matters at hand if you ask
me.

-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