Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, William S. Lovell wrote:
> I've reviewed Karl's "Prescription-to-Promote" email, and I must say
> that he is, for once, uncharacteristically dead wrong
I'd like to insert a minor correction - if I am dead wrong, it wouldn't be
"for once". I'm a practiced expert at being wrong. I've had some real
buzzards of ideas over the years - For instance, back in the very early
1980's, when I first saw the new IBM PC, I said that it didn't have enough
power to run networking code.
On the other hand, having experienced plenty of errors - either of my own
making or contributed by others, I've come to appreciate a bit of formal
procedure that encapsulates the wisdom of those who came before.
Check out http://www.bitshift.org/archives/rror.shtml These are a version
of Roberts Rules that have been modified for use in an electronic forum.
There are still many of the things that you object to. However, I find
them necessary to deal with the "tyranny of the chairman" problem.
For years I've watched electronic forums move from the nice-n-friendly
mode in which things move quickly into non-procedural chaos. This is why
I find process, particularly formalized procedures extremely important.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html