Re: [ga] Precedence/ GA Structure
Let me say I agree with Eric that the rfc's he cites below are examples
of the kinds of organization needed to carry out votes. Those
have been lurking over what's going on in the IDNO right now might
wonder whether its procedures might have been helped by haveing such
a set of unambiguous rules. However, one must not mix apples and oranges
Whether one is referring to "best practices" generically, or the Best
Practices that Joanna Lane and I have been working on, these have
to do with reaching decisions on issues, not candidates for
Although both carry out a vote, a vote on an issue is not an election.
That said, the principles that the RFC's below exhibit should
be exhibited in any Best Practices procedure dedicated to the question
of how to reach consensus on issues, and once Joanna and I manage
to overcome some personal hurdles and get the first complete "volume"
published, it will probably be worthwhile to take a look at them with
a view towards whether a BP v 2.0 might be better.
Eric Dierker wrote:
I would think that we should adopt some adaptation
of these rules for
They were really quite well worked out. They could easily be adapted
our necessary working group models.
I know they are only rfcs' but I think they are good. I think
could also work for the TFs and be worked into any best practices.
They certainly could guide us in this deletion and transfer discussion.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html