Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joe and all assembly members,

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Patrick Corliss writes:
>  > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:50:45 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>  > > I might be missing something here, but where are the "current
>  > > procedures" mentioned above codified?  Further, if the Chair was to
>  > > personally accept the proposed policy, would that make it a de
>  > > facto GA institution?
>  > (3) An alternative, already suggested, is to use Joop's polling booth
>  > for the purpose.  Again, any discussion about voting procedures
>  > should be conducted on the GA-RULES list.  For example, how should
>  > people register to vote?  We really need to take things a step at a
>  > time.
>
> You make a blanket statement that discussion *must* take place on the
> illegitimate ga-rules discussion list.  There can be no discussion of
> anything involving material changes to the GA on any other mailing list
> unless and until there is a formal vote and acceptance of such a motion
> by the entire GA.  Your claim that "13 or 14" respondents agree with the
> motion is insufficient evidence that it should be approved on sight.

  Well said Joe, and thank you!  You are of course quite correct here.

>
> And I certainly do not trust the so-called "polling booth" that Joop
> continues to push as being anything other than self-serving
> aggrandizement by Joop, as the only evidence that his booth is fair was
> the so-called votes of the so-called IDNO, which have been shown time
> and again to have been severly tainted by Joop himself.

  Well the Polling booth is a good tool for polling, but needs some work
before it could be used a a voting mechanism for this assembly.

>
>
> If you want to debate fundamental changes to the way that the GA
> operates, the only viable place for the debate is the GA list.  No other
> list is a legitimate forum for such debates.

  Strong statement, but I would have to agree...

>
>
>  > (4) Once the motion is accepted by Danny, the GA could self-organize
>  > enough to transfer debate to GA-RULES voluntarily.  Some might refuse
>  > and we could discuss what to do about that if it happens.  At least,
>  > those who refuse would be seen as acting contrary to the will of the
>  > majority.
>
> You cannot act contrary to the will of the majority, when you have
> yourself shown that only "13 or 14" respondents showed interest in the
> issue.  This does not a majority make.  A formal vote makes a majority,
> and only a formal vote.

  Exactly right.  And the DNSO GA has a voting mechanism to do that with.

>
>
>  > (5) Even without a vote, the current rules allow the list monitors to
>  > adjudicate whether an issue is off-topic.  Should the motion be
>  > accepted by the majority -- and the Chair -- the list monitors might
>  > be asked to apply the rule accordingly.  Again, discussion of this
>  > issue is best left to GA-RULES.
>
> No discussion about the rules of the GA can happen legitimately anywhere
> else except on the GA list.  Period.
>
> /Joe
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html