[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

On 28 June 1999, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

>may i humbly suggest that this forum could be used to higher purposes than
>rediscovering how simple meeting process works in our culture?  there are
>nice pamplets on the subject.  maybe someone could even post a nice url.
>could we get to items of substance instead of form?  in case you need some
>worthy of consideration, a starting place would be to take a look at the
>detailed questions for working groups a through c.

Randy, I appreciate what you're saying.  I really, honestly do.  I would
love to get to work as well.  But can you honestly say that the work would
be worthwhile, if it could all be wished away by the random application
of whatever rule the body deems relevant at the moment?  I cite, for
example, the lack of any kind of accurate vote tally during several votes
at the 6/25 meeting of the pDNC, as well as a blatant re-vote when 
Michael lost count.  The first vote may as well have been a straw poll.
Sure, there are parliamentary tactics one can use to elicit just such
an outcome, but it's not often you get it gratis.

Yes, it'd be wonderful if we could forego such trivialities such as 
"How to follow a set of rules to ensure fairness and equity for all".
But I'm not ready to invest a good deal of what little free time I have,
if the board can simply manipulate procedure until they get whatever
they want.  If everyone wants to play games, can we at least decide on
one self-consistent set of rules, and stick to them?

This is not closed-door politics, and the tactics that serve one well in
situations such as those will not work when you're scrutinized by the
groups you claim to represent.  They tend to desire that things get
done both quickly *and* fairly.  So far, the only thing anyone's
concerned themselves with is quickly.  It's about time everyone
put a little effort into fairly as well.

Of course, the alternative is to revert to closed meetings.  At which
point what little popular support remains for this entire process will
most likely crumble.  

 Mark C. Langston