Re: [ga] proceedure for getting text approved for vote.

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

this seems like a pretty good assessment of what i've seen, and i
did take the time to review the recent record. 

i understand the logic behind the reluctance to take up jamie's 
proposal, but it's important to distinguish inasmuch as possible
between personal views and functional duties. the best way to do
that is to be both explicit and rigorous about which hat one is 
wearing when one speaks. ultimately, if people want to make pro-
cess-oriented remarks, the onus falls on them to be clear about 
the status of their remarks within that process, e.g., 'as chair, 
i oppose this on X procedural grounds,' 'i have a concern about
Y and this is a discussion point,' 'i propose the following modi-
fied text Z and have put up a comparative table of texts at this
URL,' etc. unfortunately, that kind of clarity has been lacking.

and since it's been lacking, the most straightforward solution,
i think, is (a) to determine whether jamie's proposal has gained
enough support to merit a vote on its substance, and (b) if it 
has, vote on it. it's my understanding that condiction (a) has 
very clearly been met.

cheers,
t

wsl@cerebalaw.com (Sun 05/12/02 at 11:00 PM -0700):

> The problem here is that there seems to be no one in charge.  As I
> read it, the motion for which the text was originated by James Love
> was touched up a bit by Joanna Lane and posted as Motion #1;
 <...>

--
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