<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
> of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
> about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
> that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
> GA main list instead of GA-rules.
> Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
> such time when we have the resources and time to vote
> on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
> issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
> not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by debate...)
> So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
> main GA list:
> [snip]
Since Alexander's call for quiet doesn't seem to have worked . . .
I think the emphasis -- on all sides -- on taking this motion to a formal
vote is misplaced. We've so far managed to avoid a knock-down, drag-out
debate on the structure and functioning of the ga (should it act like an
IETF working group? like a national parliament?), but it seems to me that
in general, it's the job of the Chair to determine when the group has
reached rough consensus on a matter like this one, so that we can move
on. The choice of exactly how he makes the determination should be largely
up to him (straw votes can be helpful sometimes, but other times
not). This motion has only been on the mailing list for a couple of days
now, which is too soon to make a judgment of rough consensus. Once a week
has gone by, though, if the "hum" remains as one-sided as it's been so far,
I think it would be fully appropriate for Danny to conclude that the
proposal is adopted by rough consensus.
Jon
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|