[Pnp-wg] Proposal for NPWG

[Steve Greenfield]

We agreed that all opinions would be published in our final report in order
of their degree of support in the committee. I have made a proposal, it has
been seconded, and I'm calling for a vote. This is entirely within the scope
of our group's mission and operating procedures.

If anyone in the PNPWG doesn't like my proposal, vote no. If you like it,
vote yes. If you have something you like better, propose it and vote yes on
that. We have a final report due in four days. All I'm trying to do is make
sure it has some actual content rather than being a report that primarily
names the topics we discussed rather than what our varying opinions may have
been on how to solve them. As it stands today, our final report will not
look appreciatively different from the interim report we filed on May 6th.
It is now July 17th and all we have done is debate the best way to create an
NOTA line on the convention ballot.

I vote YES on my proposal precisely as it is worded. I want that included in
our final report.

Steve Greenfield
New Paltz, NY

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kramer" <scooter@guisarme.net>
To: "Steve Greenfield" <bicyclesax@earthlink.net>
Cc: <pnp-wg@gp-us.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Pnp-wg] Proposal for NPWG


> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Steve Greenfield wrote:
>
> > process of determining Green opinion on candidate selection. We agreed
> > to return to these concepts before filing our final report, and recently
> > Steve Kramer, a co-facilitator of the NPWG, suggested to the National
> > Committee that the NC delay discussion and voting on solutions proposed
> > by three or more member states of GPUS until such time as that final
> > report is issued and discussed.
>
> Well, actually, I didn't.  I wrote that I had *hoped* that would be the
> case, and I suggested that Greens contact the members of this Working
> Group; however, the Secretary accepted the proposals and therefore it
> looked like we (the NC) were voting on them.
>
> I have been attempting to coordinate with Elizabeth in order to publish
> the opinion of the co-facilitators on our work so far.  This has been
> complicated by the fact that my Internet access has fallen victim to a
> lightning strike - I'm writing this from my mother's house right now.
> We've also played a bit of phone tag.
>
> My concern with the proposals as presented - essentially a restatement of
> the ones in front of the NC - is that they in some sense fall outside the
> charge of this Working Group.  I also feel they are not quite specific
> enough.  "One Green, One Vote", for example, is a nice phrase which has
> been bandied about quite a bit lately - but without a specific idea of
> what "one Green" means or what "one vote" means (indeed, some of the
> states so proposing at the NC level had different ideas of what it means,
> as did some of the concept's original authors), it does not exactly get us
> closer to our stated goal.
>
> What I am working on right now is a statement from the facilitators that
> will represent our "baseline".  It is, in fact, the job of the
> facilitators to state what they feel the will of the Working Group to be.
> I have that right now in "back of the napkin" form, which I will be
> discussing with Elizabeth.
>
> Once we come up with this, we will present it to the Group for further
> consensus work.  Please note that it is *not* intended as the final word
> from us!  Rather, it will be presented as a penultimate view - unless
> there is objection, according to our rules of consensus, then this view
> will carry the day.
>
> I will be working on this presently.
>
> -- 
>    Steve Kramer           ||         scooter (at) guisarme dot net
||
>    _____________________
===================================================
>   |  __/^\__        ,-^,|
>   |/~       \_     {  / |      "There are no jokes.  The truth is the
>               \/\   |!  |             funniest joke there is."
>                 /  / )  |___
>                (_  \ \     /                Muhammad Ali
>                  ~v^  ?_,-'
>