[ga-rules] BEST PRACTICES in action

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

on 7/17/01 2:09 AM, William X. Walsh at william@userfriendly.com wrote:

> Hello Patrick,
<snip>
> You are FAR exceeding the authority you have, and you have even
> misstated much of the support you claim, some of those claim they
> support the INTENT or the SPIRIT behind the motion, but did NOT come
> out and support your motion or its wording, much less your list of
> restricted agenda items.

It is not at all clear to what extent this "Motion" has support as a MOTION
with agreed-upon wording. At least one member cited by Patrick in support
has since expressed concerns in response to my request for DISCUSSION on the
implementation of such a rule. Rather, it's best case scenario is that it is
a PROPOSAL that has received sufficient support through DISCUSSION and an
informal POLL that it has risen to the level of a MOTION that could now be
presented for DEBATE and possible AMENDMENTS, followed by a BALLOT.

In the meantime, it is not for Patrick to mind read the GA in terms of what
he thinks is the best compromise for agreed-upon final wording, but equally,
as the PROPONENT, he is free to make SUGGESTIONS for AMENDED wording, but
they are just that, SUGGESTIONS. I put forward a SUGGESTION for an AMENDMENT
also, but members have not yet DEBATED that wording, or been offered an
opportunity for a POLL to chose between the various options. Therefore,
while it has been RECOGNIZED by the Chair as a MOTION that has been
SECONDED, it cannot be said that the final wording has been agreed and
therefore that it is ready for a VOTE.

In the normal course of events, we would now assess a requirement for a
TIME-LINE of about another 3 weeks to complete the process, say one week for
further DEBATE on possible AMENDMENTS, one week for a POLL to agree the
final wording, then one week to be put to a VOTE of the entire assembly, so
in 3 weeks time, the VOTE could be REPORTED and assuming it passes, added to
the rules.

This is BEST PRACTICES in action. Everybody knows where we are in the
process. Anger of the kind expressed by WXW above would not arise.

Unfortunately, since the DNSO Secretariat cannot oblige with a VOTE at this
time, there seems little point in continuing the DEBATE, hence Patrick's
request to voluntarily comply. (This seems a reasonable request, and as a
mark of respect for the will of those who supported the spirit and intent of
this Motion, I direct this response to the appropriate sub-list.)

In the particular circumstances of no resources available for a VOTE, the
choice now is whether to continue the process through to the stage where we
can definitively say the wording is agreed, then forward to the DNSO
Secretariat to wait in a queue for a VOTE, or we can defer all further
DEBATE until such time as a VOTE can be taken, knowing that it will still
require a further 2 weeks prior to a VOTE of the entire GA. My SUGGESTION
would be to run an informal POLL on that question.

I'd like to thank Patrick for the time he has taken to prepare an agenda for
ga-rules. Any attempt to self-organize is to be commended in my view, but he
has shot himself in the foot by calling it a PROPOSAL. A PROPOSAL needs
DISCUSSION, without which it is a SUGGESTION and clearly, no agenda for
ga-rules has been DISCUSSED and therefore it gives the impression that he is
presenting it as an official announcement from the Alt Chair, thus raising
allegations of exceeding his responsibility. If, on the other hand, Patrick
had preceded the announcement of his agenda by first raising it as an ISSUE
on the sub-list, thus offering the opportunity for a DISCUSSION, before any
documentation was presented, or, by making it clear that the agenda list is
a SUGGESTION that is open for DISCUSSION, (which is what I believe he means
it to be), then there is nothing to object. Again, we would all then have
known where we are.

My SUGGESTION is that a sub-list agenda is an ISSUE that needs discussion,
and we should get on with it. To that end, I would set a TIME-LINE of one
week, after which we will know whether or not it's a workeable idea, and if
so, have a fairly definitive list that we can agree is appropriate, possibly
Patrick's list, or an amended version, and if necessary run a POLL to
confirm support of various options that may arise. Once agreed upon, we can
make an announcement to the ga-main list, thus encouraging further input to
the agreed upon ISSUES that will be addressed here.

Apologies for the length of this post. No time to spell-check or cut down.

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