[ga] On the "rebid" vote: Now we're getting somewhere!

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

We have here a basic motion from Jamie, and various comments, proposed 
amendments, substitute motions, etc., relating thereto. However, one 
"can't tell the players without a program." One post that sticks in my 
mind says something to the effect that "I think Dan's amendment is a 
good one, . . . ." But who is "Dan?"  And what was his amendment?  I'd 
suggest that, starting with Jamie's "motion," we most politely and 
subserviently ask our stalwart work horse, Joanna Lane, to consolidate 
these posts into a single document that identifies each motion 
numerically, as in "#001 -- "Rebid" -- Proponent - James Love"; "#002 -- 
"Rebid" -- Proponent - "Dan"; etc. Then, insofar as possible, subsumed 
under each such entry would be posted copies of any proposed amendments 
or comments, etc., that are unambiguously directed towards that 
particular motion. Then it would be possible for those who don't know 
who "Dan " is, or who get lost in the accumulating posts with respect to 
exactly which "motion" is being talked about, to respond, if desired, 
more clearly. In making comments, amendments, etc., it would then be 
very useful, of course, if such posts started out with something like 
"As to #001 . . . ," or even "As to Jamie's "motion, . . . ,"  etc.

I have usually put quotes about "motion" above, since I think what's 
going on here is really an attempt to generate a motion -- i.e., these 
several contributions may reasonably be treated as "proposals for a 
motion" -- that we can all agree upon.  (I concur with the notion that 
Jamie's "motion" is not at all ready to be forwarded through the Chair 
to be voted on, not because there is anything wrong with the motion 
itself, which I personally like, but rather because it has not been 
given enough study.)  What would be expected out of this process would 
likely be some single Motion, which would then be in shape to be sent on 
to the DNSO --not on the basis that X number of people favor or oppose 
it, but rather that it expresses, more precisely and informatively than 
any of the other proposed motions, what the exact issue is that needs 
decision.  As Joanna has previously suggested, and following the form of 
a Motion that Karl Auerbach had put before the BoD many months ago, what 
would help to separate one proposed motion from another would be the 
content of an initial sequence of "whereas" clauses that would provide a 
meaningful basis for the substantive body of the Motion.

Sound reasonable?

(Forgive me, Joanna, for I know not what I do.  :-))

Bill Lovell

--
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