Re: [ga-rules] Re: Consensus

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

Patrick and all,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> 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".

  What "Suggestion"?  What are you talking about specifically?  I am and
was referring to the .BIZ MOTION...

>
>
> 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".

  Ok fine.  With respect to the .BIZ MOTION debate and a proposal(s)
have already been offered, debated, and than a MOTION was introduced.
THAT is what I was again referring to...

>
>
> 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.

  Agreed of course.  Been here done this many many times in 20+ years
of sitting on boards, member of god knows how many "Assemblies",
and my experience tells  me this is how it should proceed.

  However with the .BIZ MOTION now before us, the debate has
already taken place, "Suggestions" have already been offered and
debated.  It is time to VOTE!  Hence, the call for a VOTE on this
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.

  Amendments can be debated separately and should be before the MOTION
WITH amendment(s) can be voted upon, yes.  However some Motions do not
lend themselves to and amendment process.  Other Motions that do, can be
voted upon without amendments if no amendment is voted in the majority
as expectable.  Than the MOTION itself is voted upon.  Pretty simple
stuff really...  So I am finding my self laughing frequently at all this
discussion about the process/procedure that is well known, well
and broadly practiced, and yet some folks here don't like it or
wish to kill such a process for motivations of their own devise...

>
>
> 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.

  No, any and all amendments are by definition "Genuine", Patrick...
A limit on the debate on any amendment from a time frame standpoint is
valid, but not the discourse of that or those debates.  Hence a problem with
the current set of Posting Rules for this assembly that  are of questionable
legitimacy in the first place...

>
>
> 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.

  Two opposing motions is fine.  Both must be debated (limit on the time)
and than voted upon.

>
>
> 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.

  I doubt that we always know what has what amount of support with the
lack of voting members voting.  So I am finding this statement a bit
difficult to agree with...

>
>
> Should I be acting as Chair, I would adopt that sort of procedure.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

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