Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #197
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, November 20 2000          Volume 01 : Number 197

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 01:14:27 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Kent,
At 18:45 11/11/00, you wrote:
>And there is no evidence of either wrongdoing or
>incompetence -- in fact, the initial board has done a remarkable job.

Who voted that? Or is this a consensus by the NC?
Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:20:10 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Suspension of William X. Walsh

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Dennis,
> the list of IDNO members *is* public and it truthfully lists new signups in
> chronological sequence.  Many new members provide links to their websites.
> See www.idno.org/members.htm

Hi Joop & William

Without commenting directly on the position taken by William X. Walsh, I feel
that the particular words complained of did not warrant the sanctions imposed.

But I must say that some of the IDNO members and supporters are people of
integrity who have my respect.  Apart from William, they include, for example:

            Roeland Meyer
            Karl Auerbach
            Judith Oppenheimer

I cannot believe such people would associate themselves with impropriety.

However, as a former auditor myself, I do know that the best safeguard against
mischief is an open and transparent process.  This is often best achieved with
independent verification and certification.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:16:45 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Results: Vote for Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-roo-vote.html ]

20 November 2000

RESULTS of the Vote for Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists
of the GA of the DNSO

Electorate: 252 persons in a vote roster, when the ballot was sent out

Voted: 56

Vote results:
*  46 votes [X] Yes, the rules should be adopted.
*   3 votes [X] No, the present rules should remain in force.
*   6 votes [X] No, I accept neither the present nor the proposed ruleset.
and 1 vote blanc.

According to the voting rules in use
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html:

   5. In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change 
      for the GA, the number of votes in favour of the winning 
      alternative must be at least 2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum 
      number of cast votes being the lower of 20% of the registered 
      voters or 100 votes. 

The number of cast votes is 56. 

To be adopted, an alternative shall be supported by "2/3 of cast votes",
i.e. 38, with a minimum number of cast votes being the "lower of 20% 
of the registered voters or 100 votes", i.e. 51. 

Therefore the proposed rules are adopted (46 "Yes" is greater than 38,
the number of cast votes, 56, is greater than 51).

DNSO Secretariat

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #197
************************