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@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Balazs Konya -- Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 13:46 -- An: pgi-wg@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@ogf.org -- http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
_______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
Go ahead and make concrete suggestions to the points you just identified.
-- -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- -- Von: pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Oxana Smirnova -- Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 15:36 -- An: pgi-wg@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@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] Im Auftrag von Balazs Konya -- >> -- Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. November 2010 13:46 -- >> -- An: pgi-wg@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@ogf.org -- >> -- http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg -- >> -- >> -- >> _______________________________________________ -- >> Pgi-wg mailing list -- >> Pgi-wg@ogf.org -- >> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
participants (2)
-
Morris Riedel -
Oxana Smirnova