Re: [ga-rules] Re: Consensus

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bill and all,

William S. Lovell wrote:

> 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;

  The motion the proposal?  I believe once a motion has
been presented it should stand as is and debated as is or
amendments suggested to change the language or add/subtract
some elements contained in the motion if necessary or
appropriate.

>
> 4) Hash over the wording of the motion;

  See comment to your #3 above...

>
> 5) The chair settles on a specific motion, and
>      it is made and seconded by whoever.

  In some cases yes.  In those that have been presented
on a specific issue, no.  So this would depend on the type of
motion...

>
> 6) No more amendments, the motion itself
>     is debated.

  Yes.  Or if amendments are added or offered to take some
elements out of some type of motions than the motion with some
amendments should be voted upon.

>
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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