Rules overruled was:Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

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

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Ellen,
>
> You wrote:
> >
> >Mr. Gaetano:  Au contraire.  At the Names Council meeting on June 25,
> 1999,
> >the GA list was defined as the General Assembly of the DNSO.  See
> >http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCsj-admin.html
> >
>
> Indeed.
> But this decision has been overruled when the the GA has been redefined
> (for the purpose of the nomination process) with a different set of
> rules.

  Oh so now rules are overruled without the benefit of the membership
voting or deciding if that is reasonable?  If so, why have rules at all if
they are overruled without due process?

>
>
> >
> >Yet the Names Council *unamiously* accepted on June 25, 1999 that the
> GA
> >existed and the mailing list (now ga@dnso.org but previously
> >discuss@dnso.org) comprised the General Assembly.  So you need to take
> up
> >your arguments with the Names Council, not me.  I am just restating the
>
> >public record as I know it, although things are so convoluted that
> >subsequent administrative meetings may have altered the decision noted
> >above.  Have they?
>
> See above.
>
> In fact, the rationale for this change of attitude by the NC was that
> there are people who are participating to the DNSO but not subscribers
> to the list, and that have to be accounted for.

  What NC?  We have no legitimate NC yet.  The rules were not followed
in the election ending October 8th.  So how could their be a legitimate
NC?

>
>
> Regardless the current and/or past attitude of the NC about the best
> definition to "bootstrap" the GA process, I believe that it is not wise
> from our part not to have a strategy in terms of the definition of the
> "membership" of the GA.
> In the future, the GA-list will continue to be what it has been up to
> now, i.e. a discussion list, but if ever any substantial decision will
> be made by the GA, it will be done via a "membership" mechanism that
> will not correspond 100% with the "list subscription" mechanism.

  Well this is at least a good idea.  But certainly not a new one, it has
been
both assumed and well documented that this has always been the case.

>
>
> > <I snipped the question on terminology - it may be of lesser priority>
>
> >
> >
> >This discussion should focus solely on the RIGHTS TO POST not on
> whether or
> >not the GA is a decision-making body.  I object to using this mailing
> list
> >rules opinion poll to extend the discussion to a policy decision
> regarding
> >the rights inherent in GA membership.
>
> I am not sure to understand this.
>
> Where should the (very important, IMHO) issues about the GA Membership
> be discussed if not on this list?
>
> Regards
> Roberto

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k 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:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208