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

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Ok....I can answer part of that. I AM.....Dan
and it was my amendment.


"William S. Lovell" wrote:
> 
> 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
--
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