Re: [ga-rules] BEST PRACTICES in action

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

on 7/17/01 11:57 PM, Joop Teernstra at terastra@terabytz.co.nz wrote:

> At 13:54 17/07/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
>> 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 agree with that SUGGESTION.

Any process can be administered by any person who does not hold strong views
on the issue at hand, so BP excludes me from any involvement in running a
poll on this Motion.

 
>> 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.
> 
> Agreed as well.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Does the suggestor set the timeline, or does s)he request the Chair to set
> one?
> The latter option seems better to me. Does BP cover this?

BP suggests an office of the GA Secretariat administers the timeline, but
does not cover who that might be, whether an individual or a group. We could
pass the GA Secretariat hat round?

The timeline should not be administered by the PROPONENT because it should
be an office that is neutral to the issue. Personally, I'm inclined to think
the PROPONENT should be consulted by whoever sets the timeline, as one can
assume they are best placed to advise likely requirements and deadlines that
need to be taken into account, and might otherwise resent exclusion from the
process.

If there is a Chair of this list, can they please make themselves known.

Regards,
Joanna
 
> -joop
> 

--
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