[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Ralf Bendrath]

William Drake wrote:

> Anyway, I think this and any other tweaks are probably moot, as a dialogue
> among five or six people isn't a basis for caucus statement.  

Just FYI: My recent silence does not imply I do not endorse the general 
effort and the direction of the statement - quite to the contrary. I just 
have to finish some other business before coming to Athens. I guess 
several others have the same problem. ;-)

So, whoever has time to work on this: Please go ahead with the statement 
and try to make it an agreed IGC statement by all means. Parminder's 
proposal sounds good to me. No opposition over a defined period of time 
implies consensus.

On the process: The "calling rough consensus" function of any coordinator 
is only needed if there are dissenting voices, right? That's why it's 
called "rough". If nobody objects, I find it hard to not move forward.

Best, Ralf
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance