Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:52:21PM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 08:16 22.02.00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >[various process issues]
> >
> >On the other hand, we could discuss some actual business, instead of
> >the endless stuff about process.
> 
> but then, when we have discussed the business, what can we do about it?

By design, we, as "the GA", can't do anything about it.  It doesn't 
make any difference at all what processes we put in place -- the 
fundamental hooks are simply not there in the bylaws.

> Talking is fine. But at the moment, we don't have a handle of what an 
> "action" by the GA is, far less how to achieve one.

Without modifications to the bylaws, there are no meaningful actions
possible by the GA.  The term GA is about equivalent to the term IETF --
the IETF almost never takes action on its own -- everything is done by
working groups, the IESG, the IAB, etc.  The GA list is like the IETF 
list -- decisions aren't made there.  That doesn't mean that it is a 
waste of time to discuss things on the IETF list, though.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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