| Subject: Enough, please. |
Author:
Ali
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:55:27 05/30/03 Fri
In reply to:
Tim
's message, "Re: ivda function" on 12:22:38 05/30/03 Fri
I'm right behind Tim on this one.
-There may or may not have been a little doubt on *exactly* what we were voting on, but there was *no doubt* that we were voting for the shorter time restriction.
-Agendas can be published in advance, but the very nature of IVDA utterly prevents this from being an absolute guide to what happens at the meeting. Not once have I ever seen a non-trivial matter be resolved in advance and just voted on at the GCM. The closest we ever came was the NCD rules last year, and that was after an extensive active campaign to complete the debate before the meeting and ensure *everyone* knew the entire picture. It still took 30 minutes of debate to decide on the rules we now use.
Not everyone reads everything that is posted on this forum - even the 'regulars'. Not everyone who goes to GCM's reads this forum at all. Not everyone who goes to the GCM will have talked to their team. Not everyone who goes will even have thought about anything that is *on* the agenda!
Matters that looked closed after email/forum debate *invariably* throw up new problems/ideas when they come to the GCM, either from people getting involved in the debate for the first time, or from genuinely new ideas/problems occuring to people.
It is for this reason that we *must* have the capability to introduce new proposals at GCMs. When the amendments procedure was revamped from first principles a few years ago, this was paramount in our thinking, and it is still entirely applicable today.
The offbeat matter looked closed before the GCM. Qualifying lokoed a solid idea, and no major objections had been raised. There was no indication that it would not pass a vote convincingly.
We have two GCMs a year. Rushing legislation aside (different issue!), problems raised at IVDC must be addressed with an amendment at the Spring GCM. That is what it is for - to fix things in time for next year. If the matter isn't properly dealt with then, we have to stick with a problem for another IVDC.
This is simply not possible in this case. IVDC is lnog enough already, and certain other measures demand that time be better used. Other than axing RnR (not an option), there is no alternative but to amend the Offbeat (assuming that the mixed semi is already gone).
This is why the offbeat problem was on the agenda. There was an apparantly sound solution presented. This was rejected out of the blue. A new approach, the time limit, was suggested and agreed to be a good idea. Noone had a problem with it, and it was voted through.
Personally, I'd have preferred qualifying, but it still seems a sensible approach.
We *MUST* solve the offbeat time problem, one way or another. Two solutions have been suggested, one rejected, therefore we use the other. Under these circumstances, it's the only thing we can do!
If someone has a better solution, we'd all be glad to hear it. Until then, we either qualify, or we cut the time.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 