RE: [ga] primary objectives of the General Assembly mailing list

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Joop

Thanks for this.  I will try to formulate some wording for approval taking
all this on board (unless you want to provide me with some actual wording
;-))

Best

Debbie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 26 July 2007 13:03
> To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ga] primary objectives of the General Assembly 
> mailing list
> 
> At 11:43 p.m. 26/07/2007, Debbie Garside wrote:
> >Joop wrote:
> >
> > > Frankly, I'm a bit worried about any mechanism that purports "to 
> > > ascertain and represent the consensual views of the 
> ordinary citizen 
> > > as a collective" if it isn't based on voting and counting.
> >
> >As I see it, this list would be tied up completely with voting 
> >mechanisms if we have to base everything that we do on voting and 
> >counting.  However, there is scope to include something about "rough 
> >consensus" as gathered by the Chair but for list members to request 
> >voting and counting on contentious/certain issues - with 
> rules for such 
> >a request requiring support from (say) 5 members perhaps.  
> What do you think?
> 
> Debbie,
> 
> I agree that not "everything that we do" needs to be voted on.
> But if this list is going to act as representing a consensus, 
> it may be needed.
> 
> Rules for voting are needed, sure. The chair can order it on 
> a request supported by 5 members. That sounds o.k. to me.
> 
> The chair can then post his formulation of the question to 
> the list for approval.
> The reply options can be posted by the original requester - 
> or vice versa.
> 
> The voting and automated count can take place offlist on a 
> voting site such as pollingbooth.info
> 
> FYI, this is how the chair got voted in.
> 
> 
> 
> -joop-
> 
> 
> 
>