Re: [ga-int] Popular motions (Dragging in a proposal to fill up this space)
At 17:50 06.05.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>I think this is an excellent suggested process.
>It certainly addresses a number of the concerns that have been raised
>on the GA list with a motions process.
>However, I think a week for discussion is too short a time.
>Motions are supposed to only codify the sense the assembly. Except
>for certain exceptions, most likely that cannot occur in the time
>frame of a single week.
>Perhaps a process for a "pressing" motion can be developed that sets a
>much higher threshold of expressed support to push a motion to a vote
>after a week, but otherwise, the motion is subject to discussion for,
>say....3 weeks perhaps.
I think the NORMAL case would be that a discussion is had, a motion is
proposed by the chair expressing the rough consensus, and this motion is
voted upon and carried.
So a Popular Motion would be an exceptional occurence, probably based on a
long and fractious debate on the mailing list.
Also, certain motions (such as committing the GA to a certain position
before a meeting) lose their effect if delayed. That is why I proposed one
in summary - I think we agree; what I termed a "popular motion" is intended
to cover what you termed a "pressing motion" above.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-int" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html