Re: [ga] Procedure.

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

Monday, May 13, 2002, 5:47:16 PM, Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 11:17 PM 13/05/02 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:

>  > I'm still trying to get your point, and I'd like to ask
>  > you to make it more clearly.

> I'll try.

The issue, Gary, is that a motion which passes by a simple 50% plus 1
is clearly NOT the consensus position of the GA.

If another motion on the subject has MORE support, even if the first
motion is supported by a majority of the members, the motion with the
widest support is much closer to a true consensus, and would be more
valid as the consensus position of the GA than any other motion that
passed by a lower vote total.

But this doesn't solve the procedural issues with regard to this
entire subject being voted on that the chair has still not addressed
to the assembly and not to my satisfaction.  Recognizing that
something is in fact out of the bounds of the GA, and still letting
the vote go forward, creates more problems than it solves, Thomas.

This motion is not topical to the DNSO General Assembly, is outside
the scope of its charter, and should be ruled out of order by the
Chair.

The chair should respect the GA enough to take a public position on
this point, as I am not the only one waiting to see the result.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/

--
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