RE: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time...

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Mark C. Langston wrote:

> 
> And you cannot just go on about your business, assuming that all of us
> are aware of things you aren't telling us.

Hey, it's not "my business" more than it is "your business".
I made an assumption, as you did, on how the system would work.
I just assumed, from experience of several mailing lists, that if an
automatic thing was set up, it would have been flooded by junk mail (maybe
even from faked senders).

It just happened that my assumption was correct.

> <snip>
> 
> As long as English is the default language for these fora, I 
> will continue
> to use it.  My apologies if I know words you don't.  However, you are
> perfectly capable of buying a dictionary or cross-language reference.
> Were this conversation in another language, I'd be forced to 
> do so, and
> I wouldn't demand that the native speaker dumb down his language so I
> can follow along.  "Shirk" is not a rare English word.  True, it's not
> in common use by the average US citizen.  But then, consider 
> where that
> average lies.  I will not apologize for being able to use my native 
> language.

Nobody asked you to do so.

My point is just that if somebody wants to be understood, he/she should
better use language that the average person in the audience can understand.
I have hundreds of E-Mails to read, in different languages. The writers of
these E-Mail will make a "wrong assumption" in thinking I will consult the
dictionary every time I hit a new word. They just lose their chance to be
understood.

> 
> 
> >What if the nominator sends a simple message to the GA, 
> announcing that
> >he/she has E-Mailed the nomination? Joop did it, for instance.
> >Sometimes there are such simple solutions!
> 
> Yes, and were that a necessary aspect of the procedure, it should have
> been documented.  I recall a similar nomiination process in the not
> too distant past in which there was a general confusion and uproar
> surrounding the submission of nominations to the correct list vs. 
> the submission to the ga list.  Make up your mind.
> 

I did, long time ago, and decided that common sense always pays off versus
checking in the procedure book what exactly has to be done, and not do one
inch more.

Examples:
When I learned that I have been nominated, the procedure told me that I only
had to notify the WatchDog Committee whether I was resigning from the
Committee itself, or declining nomination right away.
Common sense told me it was in order to announce this event to the GA.
When I will notify ga-nominations@dnso.org of my acceptance or refusal of
the nomination, according to the procedure, you bet that I will notify the
GA list.
Not because the process is broken, but because I think it improves
communication (and is also polite) at little cost.
I am also assuming that the average reader of the GA list will not check
every ten minutes the http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/1999.DNSO-GAchair.html
page to see if there are new nominations/acceptances, so if I really want
the message to go through, I'll send it myself rather than wait for the
procedure to run.

> >Now I understand ;>).
> 
> No, your next statement clearly indicates you don't.
> 
> >Thank you for stating in plain English that your purpose is 
> "[to make]
> >noises about bad procedure" "regardless of what is actually 
> going on".
> 
> 
> That is not my purpose.  One of my purposes is to try to get this
> organization on some sort of solid ground regarding procedure.
> Part of that purpose is to point out where things aren't working.  
> It's called "criticism".  I brought up the problem, I offered 
> a solution.
> All you want to do is assume I'm just braying at you.
> 
> This goes right to the heart of the matter.  Procedures are supposedly
> created in this organization via a consensus process.  
> However, critical
> aspects of these procedures are altered and/or undocumented.  
> This leads
> to misunderstandings, arguments, and distrust.  Sometimes they're only
> documented well after the fact, leading to suspicion.
> 
> What I'm trying to hammer home is that if you'd just stop 
> glossing over
> these things, the problem would go away, or at least open the door to
> the possibility of eliminating them.  You see, if you document it in
> advance of its implementation and publicize that fact, you allow those
> it affects to discuss, understand, and if necessary change 
> the procedure.
> 
> Things work much, much better when people feel a part of the process, 
> instead of apart from the process.
> 
> You'd do well to learn that.
> 

What I'm learning is even more than that.
I'm learning that the fact that nominations can be posted on the Web site
with few hours of delay is more important than the nominations themselves,
not to speak about a discussion on the role of the GA, the role of the
GA-Chair, the criteria of the choice (in the sense of the qualities that the
Chair should have, not in the sense of the procedures to be applied). 

But then, in the end, if this is the focus of the discussions in the GA,
maybe we don't even need a Chair at all.

Regards
Roberto