RE: [ga] Procedure.

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Thomas,
I am deeply concerned that this procedure is being unilaterally decided by a
Chair who is not at all neutral on the issues being debated. He is very
hostile towards the first Motion, and if that isn't bad enough, the
Alternate Chair is the Proponent of what is being set down as a competing
Motion.  This state of affairs is not at all satisfactory, the results will
not stand up to scrutiny later, it goes directly against every principal of
Best Practices.

I make further comments below.

> Just in case it helps, the ballot as I imagined it when I wrote my
> message in the morning would (roughly) look like this:
>
> 	[ ] motion 1
> 	[ ] motion 2
>
> 	[ ] abstain
>
> The options you have: Either abstain, or give yes/no votes to _both_
> motions.  In this situation, there are basically three things which
> can happen:

This is not an appropriate format. These are not conflicting Motions whereby
one has to chose one or the other, and if they were, then you should not be
sending them for a vote, rather you should facilitate further discussion to
eliminate one or other Motion. That would more than likely involve another
informal Poll to determine which has greater consensus. As it is, if you
insist on proceeding with a formal ballot this week, then you must allow the
membership to vote on each Motion separately, which means an option for,
against, and abstain on each Motion.

> I admit that this is a rather "creative" application of the GA's
> voting rules.

Which would make the whole exercise a complete waste of time since the
results would not stand up to scrutiny for reasons of your creative
application of the rules.


> As far as I see it, a strict application of these rules would
> mandate that the question on the ballot is something like this:
>
> 	Please select one of the following options:
>
> 	[ ] The GA should adopt the "re-bid" resolution
> 	[ ] The GA should adopt the "basic principles" resolution
> 	[ ] The GA should adopt none of the above resolutions.


Excuse me? Please point me to the part of the rules that says members cannot
explicitly state their preference for each motion presented to them as a
separate decision. I may agree with both of these Motions, or disagree with
both, or I may agree with one, but abstain on another. You are denying my
right to make those choices.

> (Then again, taking this vote at all most likely implies that we are
> already bending some rather important rules, as William has
> argued.)

A wholly inappropriate, almost juvenile, response to the point of order
question in my view. If, the Chair is not satisfied that a vote is in order,
then he/she should stop proceedings forthwith until it is. If, on the other
hand, he/she allows it to proceed, then it should be done willingly and in
good faith. Making insinuations that the procedure may be invalidated
later - as Thomas is now doing, is out of order for a Chair.

> I'm still waiting for comments on this; I'd suggest that these
> comments should come rather quickly, since the time window we have
> for starting an election is limited to this week due to practical
> constraints at the secretariat, as I already pointed out more than a
> week ago.

What practical constraints? Since when did the General Assembly have to
conduct its business to fit in with the Secretariat's social life (or
whatever the reason is for insisting its done this week)? Do we know what
pressing issue(s) prevents the Assembly from conducting its business as it
sees fit?

Regards,
Joanna
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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
>

--
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