Re: [ga-rules] Re: Consensus

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:29:56 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 08:13:47 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

> > 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.

Hi Jeff

What Bill is saying is that we often start off with some sort of proposal.
At this stage it is not a formal motion or anything like it.  More a
"suggestion".

Then there's some debate about the proposal.  If people are interested,
somebody might come along and formulate the original proposal into some sort
of formal "motion".

However, you are quite right.  Once a motion gets put "on the table", it
needs to be debated "as is" unless somebody proposes an amendment.  Normal
rules of order require than an amendment must be dealt with BEFORE the
original motion.

Harald's point was that the debate can be fillibustered by people
continually putting forward amendments.  One response (Joanna's?) was that
there be a scheduled cut-off point for stopping any further amendments.
That is drawing a line in the sand somewhere.

An easier way is to require amendments to be seconded.  The Chair can, of
course, reject any further amendments from the same person/s as this would
have the effect of amending their own amendment.  However, further, genuine
amendments should be accepted up to a point.

Alternatively, if the amendment is totally contrary to the original motion,
you could solve the problem the way I did with Harald on [ga-roots].  That
was to formulate two opposing motions.  Then, when the motion goes to the
vote, the list participants could choose either/or.

However, Bill's point is quite valid.  There should be at least some
preliminary discussion before somebody throws down a hare-brained motion
which has little or no support.

Should I be acting as Chair, I would adopt that sort of procedure.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss









--
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