Re: DNSO worries

Joop Teernstra (terastra@terabytz.co.nz)
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:38:59 +1200

At 21:20 10/01/99 -0500, Michael S. wrote:
>Roberto Gaetano a écrit:
>
>> No, the participants list is *not* reaching *all* the participants. It's no
>> longer reaching me, for instance.
>> Please, avoid posting to my personal address. My personal address is for
>> personal matters. I will receive DNSO matters through the open list
>> discuss@dnso.org.
>
>That may alright for you, Roberto, but there are from fifty to a hundred
>other people to take into consideration. You have decided to use the discuss
>list exclusively. But they may not have decided that. And some of them,
>maybe most, may not be using the participants list either. We may
>effectively be losing touch with the membership, which I for one consider
>very bad.
>
>> I doubt that there can be any reasonment in the world that can convince me
>> that there is information that has to be addressed to the participants of
>> Barcelona and/or Monterrey, but hidden to the others.
>
>It's not a matter of information to be addressed. It's a question of two-way
>communication between people who have already worked together. You are
>suggesting that all consensus and voting on the DNSO.org application be done
>by the participants of the discuss list rather than the participants present
>in MTY and BCN. That is a pretty radical suggestion, and extremely
>foolhardy, IMHO.
>
>Would you dilute the force of the DNSO.org consensus application, by
>removing its support from the participants, even before it has had a chance
>to compete with the other proposals? I don't see that any other group has
>done anything so foolish as that. The ORSC has written a proposal amongst
>themselves, then posted it. That's what the DNSO.org has been doing, except
>that our base is much larger and broader than theirs. Why would you want to
>dismember the DNSO.org process, by ignoring the participants and diluting
>those who remain in the discuss list?
>

Michael, Roberto, Eberhart and all,

As someone exluded by distance from Barcelona and Monterrey, I would agree
with Roberto.
What some may call dilution, others will call broadening the base, before
things are cast in stone.
"our base" may be broader their "theirs" but both bases are much in need of
broadening.

And only a draft that is as inclusive as possible will attract this broad
base. Without it, there is no legitimacy, no mandate and only the
accusation of hypocrisy for having a discuss@dnso.org list that key
participants are not even subscribed to.
Was the discuss list only created to pay lip service to the idea of further
input?
Was it symptomatic that substantial comments made by "outsiders" on the
discuss list were ignored by "participants" and "drafters" and not even
included in Anthony's summary? (my apologies to Anthony if it was just an
honest oversight)

Now the draft is going to be put up for a vote by "the membership", who
will have the vote?
All participants to the discuss list? I asked this question before and
Roberto had trouble answering it.
Time for the leadership to decide who is in and who is out.
Do we have to pay our dues first, before we can vote?

--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/