Re: [ga-rules] Re: Consensus

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Eric:

You are too, too, kind! :-)

What that approach does is recognize that (as proven
in Florida) voting processes do not constitute an exact
science, and "the sense" of a populace on an issue
should be clear enough from what's been said, and was
there a final conclusion of any kind. Those who are
active in these pages on these issues, in effect, are
acting as "voices" for an unknown number of lurkers
who may well care very much about the conclusions
reached, but don't bother to jump in if they see a thing
developing in the direction they want anyway.  If that
is the case, requiring a "quorum" (as a % of what?)
would be an obstacle to decision making. The same
is true of votes out of our (I think) 322 registered
voters (although it would be nice to have more). Each
vote that's gone through has had a vast majority edge,
which reflects a comment from someone that the formal
vote only "confirms" what we all "knew"  was going
to be the result anyway.  The 322 also see that coming,
hence many don't bother to vote, so I think no threshold
number of those 322 should be required either. This is not
at all to suggest that no vote should be taken, of course, since
that gives those who do NOT like the way some issue has
developed a last chance to make that fact known without
having themselves to start eating up bandwidth.

1) Propose;
2) Debate the proposal;
3) Filter out of the debate a form of motion;
4) Hash over the wording of the motion;
5) The chair settles on a specific motion, and
     it is made and seconded by whoever.
6) No more amendments, the motion itself
    is debated.
7) The vote is scheduled and taken.

Looks complicated, but really quite simple. If no
definitive motion emerges, the thing dies a
deserved death.

Bill

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have reread this following paragraph and have printed it out and stuck it to my
> wall. Mr. Lovell is one of the finest wordsmiths I have ever observed.  If anyone
> ever raises the issue of consensus and can read then they would be a fool not to
> understand it after reading this paragraph.  This also sets the straw argument of
> voting versus consensus in it's rightful backroom in the corner place.
>
> Thank you Mr. Lovell,
> Eric
>
> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>
> > A systematic process in which the occurrence of vigorous debate is there
> > for all to see, the formulation therefrom of a definitive position is achieved,
> > and a final vote on that position that reaches a conclusion is taken, would
> > add great weight to a claim of "consensus," and never mind all those
> > numbers.
> >
> > (Joanna, I'll review your DEFINITIONS later.)
> >
> > Bill Lovell

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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