Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:31:39 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward


>          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.

Thanks for you commnts, Jon, but the fact is that there is a continuing
objection that the process does not have *legitimacy*.  It is only to
satisfy these interjections that a formal vote is needed.  Should people
voluntarily comply it would not be woorth doing.

<snip>
> 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

Sure.  But people still need to accept the Chair's determination.

> (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.

Agreed.  So can we continue the debate on the [ga-rules] mailing list?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss









--
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