Summary of proposal status
kristoff at GENBANK.BIO.NET
Fri Feb 28 18:06:08 EST 1992
> >Option 1: Have a discussion period (10 days?) during which the charter
> >for the group will be modified, withdrawn, etc. by "consensus."
> >Option 2: Leave the group creation level at 80 YES votes, but allow
> >the vote to be overturned if a certain level of NO votes were reached.
> >I did not suggest a level, but could see an argument being made for
> >requiring a number of NOs > # of YESes.
> >Comments, please ... of course we could do both of the above (Option 3).
> I'm for Option 3 (10 days of initial discussion seeking "consensus"
> and then 30 days of voting (and further discussion) during which the proposed
> group must get at least 80 YES votes *and* more YES's than NO's). Let's also
> add the option that the "formal proposers" of the group can extend the initial
> discussion (delay the onset of voting).
This sounds fine to me.
> I don't think we should have a formally designated discussion leader
> for BIOFORUM. It's an "open forum" for "whatever pops up and doesn't have a
> better place," so whoever popped it is by default the "promoter" of that
> discussion. For discussions about group proposals, the proposers can be
> expected to promote the discussion in coordination with the BioSci managers.
I don't think that anyone proposed a discussion leader for BIOFORUM; I
think David Steffen's comment was intended to address your last
sentence above, i.e., the need for someone to summarize the new
newsgroup discussions. This can be the proposer of the newsgroup
and/or the BIOSCI managers just as long as it gets done before the
call for votes goes out.
More information about the Bioforum