Re: [ga-rules] Procedures and Process

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Dassa,
Comments interspersed below,
Joanna

> |> 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 -

Dassa wrote:- 
> 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.

We are not too far apart on this issue, but for reasons clarified in my
previous post today at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/msg00141.html, I think there
should be some minimum guidelines for best practices.

That would not be a rule, but an indication of what can be reasonably be
expected from a proposer, and in return, when it is anticipated that the GA
would respond and how.

I am not talking about brainstorming, such as this exchange may be
described. I am talking about those who have a rough idea that has already
been received with cautious optimism. I, for one, want some assurance that
if I then put in the time and produce a decent proposal, this will be given
the attention it deserves, and not shot down by a knee jerk reaction from
one or two disruptors with a few posts to spare, from which it is difficult
to recover.

To have 10 names in support of an idea carries weight. I already have 3
names for a voluntary Buddy System. With another 7, I might actually
consider it worth doing. If we set goals, without preventing those with a
singular passion pushing forward in isolation, that would help. It might be
worth looking at the WG best practices documents, whichever WG that was.

> 
> |> 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.

Template is a good word for this document.
> 
> 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.

Let's do that to present at Uraguay.

Regards,
Joanna

--
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