RE: [ga-rules] Procedures and Process

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-rules@dnso.org On Behalf Of Joanna Lane
|> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 5:27 AM
|> To: dassa@dhs.org; [Ga-Rules]
|> Subject: Re: [ga-rules] Procedures and Process
|>
Hello Joanna

Just a quick response for now, I hope to flesh out my comments in detail
over the next few days.

|> Hello Dassa,
|> Very good suggestion. Without an agreed procedure, it's very difficult
to
|> make any real progress with any proposal that is met with even very
limited
|> opposition, unless it already fits with an NC/ BoD agenda, which is not
|> concerned with introducing a process to micro-manage the GA. Catch 22.

My main purpose would be to work out a process where the GA can get some
meaningful outcomes for less effort.  This may be a cross between processes
and best practices.  That is something we may hope to define here.

|> Without wishing to spend a great deal of time on anything other than the
|> substantive issues facing the GA at this time, I do think it's very
|> important for the Assembly to be required by its Rules to give proper
|> consideration to any proposalthat meets certain criteria. Anf
|> then, to deal with it in a specified way.

As you may be aware of from other forums, I tend to believe that unless the
processes are defined first, it stops us being productive in any real
sense.  However, I would not intend to uphold without compromise my own
beliefs in this regard.  I tend to like more rigid structures than most.
Hopefully we will be able to all work together to bring about some
documentation that others will find useful.

|> The question is, what is the criteria that members can reasonably be
|> expected to meet, in order for their proposals to be taken to the next
|> stage?
|>
|> My suggestion would be to include:-
|>
|> 1) Endorsement by 10 members (to fit with agreed nomination procedures)
of
|> the proposal document. The proposal document to include an Impact
Statement,
|> that attempts to answer a few basic questions -

I'm not sure this is necessary as I envisage an individual or group
submitting a document outlining an issue as they see it and then the GA
Assembly discussing the points within the document.  If the issues have no
support or there is total opposition to them, the discussion will not be
developed and the issue will die out.  It may be raised again at a later
date to a different reception.  This in my mind makes the above requirement
redundant.

|> a) How does this proposal fit with the ByLaws, White and Green papers?

Good point.

|> b) Is this a proposal to improve to existing operations or to make a
structural change to DNSO?
|> c) What are the cost implications?
|> d) What are the possible adverse effects and benefits to the various
stakeholder groups?
|> e) Has outreach been undertaken, and if not, how is it proposed to
achieve consensus amongst affected stakeholders?
|> f) What is the proposed timeline/ deadline for implementation?

All good points.  Perhaps we can flesh out a draft template document for
people to follow that incorporate these ideas.

The advantage of this would be to have all the issues put forward in a
manner that supplies the majority of information in one post and would
enable others to read the ideas and strategies behind the issues raised in
a clear and consistent manner.

Perhaps we can work through this and develop some worthwhile contributions.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html