[ga] what if they had a party and no one came ?

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

i totally agree with the principles jonathan is presenting here..

i am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this group has bent over so far
backward to accomodate & placate each & every participant that it is
becoming totally "dysfunctional".

there is so much distrust & "posturing" amongst many of the participants
that the ga has literally "ground to a halt..."

just look at the last 500 e-mails and you find my assertions to be the
case...

your getting pleas from all sides of  to "move on" and yet here the ga
stands with its feet stuck in quicksand

i am not necessarily on the same side with some of you on some of the
perspectives and issues presented here by i do share commonality on others
and would like to see substantive movement on those (i.e. individual
constituancy)..

if all the ga is interested in doing is arguing, posturing, positioning
amongst each other and "talking to hear themselves",  then i wil just say
"to hell with it" and try to find other venues to work within on issues like
those i have advocated and supported here !

i promise you that i am by no means the only person who shares this opinion
!!

well...it's, collectively, "your call" people

regards,

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: "Joe Kelsey" <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus


> At 07:46 PM 7/17/2001 -0700, Joe Kelsey wrote:
> [snip]
> >I do not know whether or not is is better to choose an
> >"easy" consensus or a "hard" consensus, but this is definitely a "hard"
> >consensus.  The vehemence of opposition is such that there are clearly
> >major problems with achieving a "rough" consensus here.  Both myself and
> >others have expressed grave doubts about both the method of forcing this
> >so-called consensus on the "rules" through the GA and with the actual
> >proposal (vague as it is).
>
>
>          Well, actually, near as I can tell, you and to a lesser extent
> Jason Graff are the *only* people who have argued against the merits of
the
> motion (though Joanna Lane proposed a wording change); among those who
have
> posted, the rough consensus on the merits seems apparent.
>
>          The procedural matter is another thing.  A variety of folks have
> urged that we need to have a formal vote here.  (Joanna has suggested "an
> informal POLL" on ga-rules "whether to continue the process through to the
> stage where we can definitively say the wording is agreed, then forward to
> the DNSO Secretariat to wait in a queue for a VOTE, or we can defer all
> further DEBATE until such time as a VOTE can be taken, knowing that it
will
> still require a further 2 weeks prior to a VOTE of the entire GA" (caps in
> original).)  It may be that, given the current state of the ga, we just
> can't follow the "rough consensus" approach of RFC 2418; that the members
> will not recognize any informal decision as legitimate, so that nothing
can
> be decided without the full trappings of a full-scale, formal vote.  If
so,
> I think it's a shame, though -- it's testimony to the dysfunctionality of
> this body, and yet another obstacle to accomplishing any actual work.
>
> Jon
>
> --
> 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
>
>

--
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