Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]
Kent Crispin wrote:
< ...I am struck by the utter absurdity of this conversation.
"Absurdity" is a rather extreme characterization for discussing the process by
which our decisions are made. And, making that characterization is a
questionable method of analyzing and resolving an issue placed upon the table
by an officer of this assembly; about which we are going to vote; and for
which there is no default answer. In short, it is demonstratively disruptive.
The real absurdity is demonstrably this: that one who believes the
conversation is absurd should participate and try to affect its outcome.
> I know that there are many who would like to see a world government
> here, but, objectively speaking, the ga is basically an informal mailing
> list, and a relatively small one at that. If we were packed in a room
> almost certainly we would just use a show of hands to vote, with a very
> simple decision rule to evaluate the results. Maybe, in extreme
> circumstances, we might pass a hat around and collect scraps of paper
> with various people's names on them.
Either we are here for serious business or we are wasting our time. If it is
serious, we should not be derided for conducting our process, accordingly. If
it is meaningless, the General Assembly, itself, should be terminated. But,
that is not the proposition we are discussing.
> Under other circumstances it might be fun to continue this as an academic
> exercise in self-governance, but from a practical point of view that would
> be silly.
Therefore, we should do what? There is no process in place. We are now
seeking motions and seconds for proposals upon which we may vote. How do you
suggest we skip that procedure?
fn:Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel