Re: [wg-review] [Process] Discuss - Current operating assumptions for WG-Review

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
> Greg wrote:- >
> > 3. Prioritizing Issues
> > My sense is that the following issues should be discussed in order,
> > focusing on each one for a period of 4 days, to be followed by the 2 days
> > of motion/statement formation. The next issue area can be discussed while
> > the vote is proceeding
> >
> > 1. Constituencies
> > 2. General Assembly
> > 3. Names Council
> > 4. Work Groups
> > 5. Standardized Procedures
> > 6. Outreach
> >
> 
> My difficulty is that in having addressed 1, additional considerations may
> arise that need to be given in the light of discussions about 2 & 3, which
> will not be fully known when originally discussing 1 . Therefore, my
> suggestion is to prepare motions and statements on 1,2,3  in order, but
> defer voting until the end of the block. This would also apply to the second
> block of 4,5,6.
> 
> Joanna

I realise that this would probably make it heavy going, and,
complicated, but, perhaps 1 through 4, should be merged, and, dealt with
as one, as, they are inter-related, and, if dealt with as separate
issues, then, it gets confusinger, and, confusinger, due to the
dependencies...

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html