[Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for requirements

[Morris Riedel]

Go ahead and make concrete suggestions to the points you just identified.

>-- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>-- Von: pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Oxana Smirnova
>-- Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 15:36
>-- An: pgi-wg at ogf.org
>-- Betreff: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for
>-- requirements
>-- 
>-- Hi Morris, all,
>-- 
>-- I can't speak for Balazs, but I do agree that in order to implement the procedures nicely outlined by Andre, we
>-- need to define, for each and every decision:
>-- 
>-- 1. what are the alternative options on which decisions have to be taken
>-- 2. who can vote (if voting is necessary)
>-- 3. which documents are available to support one or another options, and how much time is allotted to study the
>-- documents before the decision making
>-- 
>-- So, nothing new - just business as usual, only in an orderly manner.
>-- 
>-- Cheers, Oxana
>-- 
>-- 
>-- 2010-11-11 14:45, Morris Riedel пишет:
>-- > Dear Balazs,
>-- >
>-- >    would you perhaps join the call today in order to explain more in detail what you mean?
>-- >
>-- > Thanks for your time.
>-- >
>-- > Take care,
>-- > Morris
>-- >
>-- >> -- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>-- >> -- Von: pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Balazs Konya
>-- >> -- Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 13:46
>-- >> -- An: pgi-wg at ogf.org
>-- >> -- Betreff: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Review of notes of OGF30 sessions on 26 October 2010 - Counting votes for
>-- >> -- requirements
>-- >> --
>-- >> -- hi Andre, all,
>-- >> --
>-- >> -- On 2010-11-07 19:01, Andre Merzky wrote:
>-- >> -- >  For PGI, my very humble opinion is that a charter update is not needed
>-- >> -- >  as long as the group is undecided on the explicit way forward -- and
>-- >> -- >  that decision is long overdue.
>-- >> -- >
>-- >> -- >  If a group is deadlocked like PGI (or rather if it is running circles
>-- >> -- >  as PGI seems to do), it is the duty of the chairs to push the group
>-- >> -- >  along.  In the worst case, if full consensus cannot be reached, a vote
>-- >> -- >  on the available options can lead to rough consensus, which ought to
>-- >> -- >  be enough to get things going again.
>-- >> --
>-- >> -- Thanks for this realistic "status report" on PGI.
>-- >> --
>-- >> -- I agree, in order to move the group forward, a push is needed.
>-- >> --
>-- >> -- So, as a first step, the group should understand the "available options". Then,
>-- >> -- after sufficient discussion of these options a vote should take place.
>-- >> --
>-- >> -- For the vote, the group should define which group members have a voting right(s).
>-- >> --
>-- >> -- And all this process should be done in a transparent relaxed manner, giving
>-- >> -- enough time to people to digest the thing they supposed to vote about. Otherwise
>-- >> -- the group will run into similar problems Etienne had just discovered.
>-- >> --
>-- >> -- bye,
>-- >> -- Balazs
>-- >> -- _______________________________________________
>-- >> -- Pgi-wg mailing list
>-- >> -- Pgi-wg at ogf.org
>-- >> -- http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
>-- >>
>-- >>
>-- >> _______________________________________________
>-- >> Pgi-wg mailing list
>-- >> Pgi-wg at ogf.org
>-- >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3550 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/pgi-wg/attachments/20101112/3e3e064a/attachment.bin