Voting procedure [Was: Re: [ga] List Rule(s) Proposal: Disorderly Words]

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Mark,

>
>You should use this instead. Rationale below.
>
> <snip>


I would like to avoid to enter in the debate of the reformulation of the
 rules for the time being, and to raise a point of order.

We are taking a high risk of rediscussing things without coming to a 
conclusion if we do not have established beforehand a mechanism for 
taking vodes that can sanction officially the decisions.
The lack of mechanism for the time being is mostly my fault, because 
when the discussion went on I did not follow up with a proposal.
So, I believe that it is time to fill the gap.

The initial proposal, from HTA, is in the archives at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc04/msg00304.html

It was later amended following some concerns (please refer to the 
archives), as follows:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc04/msg00309.html

THis was almost two months ago, and there was no further contribution.
Can we resume from there?
Any objection to the voting procedure as it is in HTA's proposal, as 
amended in the latest version?

Can we have the text above posted in the DNSO.org?

I assume that the proposal for voting procedure, possibly further 
amended if somebody proposes amendments, could be "tested" against 
itself, i.e. the first ballot could be the formal approval of the 
procedure.

The electorate is, of course, the list of people who registered to vote 
(see http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html).

This made, we could have proposals for new rules, that will be discussed
 and voted with the approved mechanism.

Fair enough?
Comments?

Regards
Roberto
--
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