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

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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-