[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"
> Bottom line: I believe that WG-C, as currently constituted, with its
> current leadership, is in a position to find compromise, consensus
> solutions to at least part of the problem if left to find its own way. I
> can't guarantee it, but I think we've got a good shot.
That's good news. WG-C does have an extremely tough issue - one that
people have been arguing over for years without much result. Even if the
amount of progress that WG-C has made so far appears small, compared to
what went before, it is significant.
Perhaps the best thing that WG-D can do is provide a cheer for the hard
work that has been done, provide encouragement to endure the frustration
of slow progress on tough issues, and answer some queries, such as you
> I do have one possible reform that I'd like to present to the group.
> Various people complained at the NC meeting that the WG-C list is so
> high-volume that it discourages people with a genuine interest in the
> issues from participating, because they're not in a position to keep up
> with the traffic. I think this is a serious problem. In response, it
> might make sense to limit list members' posts per day (say, to two).
In some of our Robert's Rules discussions here on WG-D it has been
mentioned that most versions of those rules allow each person only one or
two comments on any matter that is up for discussion prior to a vote.
(Note, that there is a distinction between the time that there's a motion
on the floor for discussion and vote, during which time the restrictions
are in effect, and the time when there is no motion pending and discussion
is not limited.)
And there is another procedural mechanism found in rules such as Roberts,
which is that one person may not speak for a second time until everyone
else has had a chance. This can be tough in an e-mail setting, and I
believe that Mark L. had some comments on this.
(Both of those procedures would cut down my postings, for instance. ;-)
Finally, does the WG have a digest version of the e-mail? It could make
it easy for those who aren't quite as addicted to e-mail as some of us
fanatics are. ;-)