[ga] sub-list usage

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Jeff,
don't mind: Patrick wants to change the rules, his priviledge. I want them 
motioned, acknowledged, debated, voted and - if a change is agreed - 
seriously applied. Until then statu quo prevails in respect of bylaws 
(transparency) and Members.

Patrick here explains - since he cannot do it democraticaly - how he wants 
to proceed by mere terorism. I acknowledge that this kind of practice has 
no impact on me. I only feel sorry for the nice chaps he may influence.

Take care.
Jefsey


Note of common interest:
follow-up on WG-Review and Proposition on Sub-Lists.

This only shows that the attempt to enforce WG-Review propositions known as 
the "Jefsey's proposition" by the Chair in an artificial and uncomplete 
non-coordinated, non debated, non voted maner has lead to the expected 
chaos and confrontation with NC. The countrary of what we had worked out 
and experimented together for a productive GA and a good coordination of 
the tasks with the NC.

I note that the so called "Jefsey's proposition" is very near from the 
BostonGroup experience and practice decribe by Karl Bild. But it takes into 
account three additional elements: that we never meat face to face, that we 
are not a close group and that we want to reach consensus. I must say that 
I use it for my own business needs and it works well (I could not afford to 
get paid by the DNSO/GA :-) ).

Patrick did not participate to the WG-Review. You may note his resulting 
inconsistency in wanting to only partly apply its conclusions. He concludes 
his mail in ... switching lists to pursue the same thread. This is his 
constant and main activity. To drive GA issues to sub-lists and to complain 
when these issues come back to the GA where they belong...

I note that I proposed Patrick an interesting use of Danny's sub-lists 
responding to Bill Williams request for mutuel education. That the sub-list 
be declared non-debating and mutual-education areas. Where newbies and old 
timers could ask about others positions, back-ground, tips, etc... Dispute 
and personal remarks prohibited. Without affecting transparency it would 
serve a lot the debates on the GA and this time certainly reduce traffc and 
misunderstandings.



On 04:15 06/07/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Patrick and all,
>
>I for one, and glad that Jefsey is among us as and assembly member.
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Hi Thomas
> >
> > > In either of these case, I don't thinkt here is any need to start
> > > bothering the ga list with public notes about Jefsey's behaviour. We
> > > all see what he does, and make our own judgements about it.
> >
> > I suspect that many people are not fully aware of the list dynamics.
> >
> > > If you want to talk just to him, and try to persuade him to follow
> > > consensus (which will either be unnecessary, or unsuccessful - see
> > > above), please do so,
> >
> > Jefsey is perfectly well aware of what he is doing and why.  It is quite
> > deliberate and designed to sabotage the lists.  He has said so publicly.
> >
> > Persuasion is not an option.  Been there and done that.
> >
> > > possibly CCing your co-chair or ga-abuse.
> >
> > As has been pointed out, it is not a breach of the rules.
> >
> > > But, please, don't do so on ga.
> >
> > Unfortunately that is the only way to change the rules. At present the 
> GA is
> > powerless in every respect.  I see that as shameful.
> >
> > But I will take the discussion onto [ga-rules] for now.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss

--
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