Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

James Love wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> : >We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus
> : >positions on the issue of elections.
> :
> : New and intelligent arguments may have more impact than another vote
> :  from the very GA which just asked for a re-bid.
> :
> 
>    Even old intelligent arguments are important.

For mine, see a post titled "Question for Sims, Lynn and Dyson" in the
ALSC forum.
http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01127.shtml

It was cc'd to three people in the title. Sims' answer is in that
archive.
The others did not respond.

> Evidence of what is the
> consensus  is important, regardless of the novelty of the position.   Noise
> on the GA list is interesting, I guess, but results of these votes can be
> much more important.   If there is a large supermajority view on the issue
> of how the board is elected, that would be significant, in Bucharest.
> 
> Jamie
> 
> PS.... Motion 2 also addressed the issue of a rebid, as you know.
> 
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
--
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