[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Ralf Bendrath]

(Resending, as my mail somehow did not make it. Or did it? Not to me.)

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 "as 
the caucus".

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