Re: [ga] Re: [IFWP] Rick White's nomination -- Newsbytes report

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 13 October 1999, john.c.lewis@bt.com wrote:


>I also supported Rick White's nomination, as a member of the Business &
>Commercial constituency, but do not see my support listed. This seems to be
>more of a process problem than anything devious. 

...except that the NC arbitrarily redefined the GA for the purposes of 
this election.  Until this election, the GA discuss list was the sole
expression of the GA.  It was the GA, by definition, by unanimous vote
of the NC, and at Amadeu's request:

    " It was then decided to take decisions on Amadeu's proposal first as
      it concerns the GA:

     1.It should be announced that the GA exists and is recognised
       according to the bylaws (unanimously accepted)
     2.the discuss@dnso.org list is regarded to be the GA of the DNSO
      (unanimously accepted)"

(from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCsj-admin.html)


...which is in direct contradiction of 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCsj-admin.html , which states:

  "The Names Council has resolved that a candidate, in order to be
   nominated must have the support of, at leat, 10 members of the 
   General Assembly.  For this purpose, anybody who is subscribed to 
   the General Assembly mailing list, the Announce mailing list or
   the list of one of the Constituencies of the DNSO is considered a 
   member of the General Assembly."

...so, either the original GA definition stands, or the NC has 
redefined the GA with this action, without input, without public
process.  They just waved their hands and made it so.




-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA