[ga-rules] Re: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects? I do !!

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

William and Joe,

I agree with both of you they are strictly voluntary and that is how they should
remain.  I use the rules corner for this post because I don't want to piss
anyone off by discussing it too much on the main list.  People don't care and by
a very obvious lack of support for Patricks attempts to force the issue we
should not have to discuss it until something drastic changes.

OTOH probably many of us will do substantial research on the At-Large study
draft.  I already have four or so more pages that are on topic and not in my
normal vicious manner.  I have a unique interest in the dotcommoner plight and
will publish much about it.  It is good to have a sublist where I can dump my
conclusions and only those really interested have to make a little effort to go
read them, and then I do not bore and otherwise annoy you fine gents who could
probably not care less.

Joe the term best does not mean best in that way, as a matter of fact it is a
humble suggestion that they are simply the best that the author could do and a
real suggestion to those practicing to make improvements.  It is like saying
give it your best effort when we know the result will be flawed.

Eric

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> William X Walsh writes:
>  > Tuesday, Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 1:23:42 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>  >
>  > |>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
>  > |>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 12:57 PM
>  > |>>
>  > |>> Tuesday, Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 6:17:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>  >
>  > |>> > They are also clogging up the [ga-abuse] list with discussion about
>  > |>> > complaints procedures.
>  > |>>
>  > |>> > Could you please take all of that stuff to [ga-rules].
>  > |>>
>  > |>> No.
>  >
>  > > Why not? Do you even have a reason?
>  >
>  > As I have said before, I don't believe that segregation of issues to
>  > sublists is a good idea, and any such co-operation with Patrick's
>  > little sublists is completely voluntary.
>
> I am going to speak up on this issue one more time.  The so-called
> "sublists" are nothing more than a place to carry out informal
> discussions, similar to "hallway conferences".  Unless and until there
> is a formal vote on the matter, they have no formal standing in the GA
> arena.  WXW is completely right and the "chair" is completely wrong.
> There is no reason to participate in the informal discussion list if you
> do not wish to participate.  They are in the process of tabling their
> informal proposals in an attempt to formalize them.  These proposals are
> nothing more than proposals, no matter how many adjectives the proposers
> choose to label them with (there is nothing "best" about these
> proposals; they are simply someone's idea of one way to proceed and are
> not the best or worst of anything.)
>
> It is very helpful to continue to carry the discussion on the main ga
> list, now that the proposers are ready to move forward.  The main list
> is the only official forum for the ga and thus, it is the only place to
> formally debate the pros and cons of the proposal.
>
> /Joe
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
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