Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William S. Lovell wrote:

> I've reviewed Karl's "Prescription-to-Promote" email, and I must say
> that he is, for once, uncharacteristically dead wrong

I'd like to insert a minor correction - if I am dead wrong, it wouldn't be
"for once".  I'm a practiced expert at being wrong.  I've had some real
buzzards of ideas over the years - For instance, back in the very early
1980's, when I first saw the new IBM PC, I said that it didn't have enough
power to run networking code.

On the other hand, having experienced plenty of errors - either of my own
making or contributed by others, I've come to appreciate a bit of formal
procedure that encapsulates the wisdom of those who came before.

Check out http://www.bitshift.org/archives/rror.shtml These are a version
of Roberts Rules that have been modified for use in an electronic forum.  
There are still many of the things that you object to.  However, I find
them necessary to deal with the "tyranny of the chairman" problem.

For years I've watched electronic forums move from the nice-n-friendly 
mode in which things move quickly into non-procedural chaos.  This is why 
I find process, particularly formalized procedures extremely important.

		--karl--



--
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