RE: DNSO worries

Roberto Gaetano (Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr)
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:03:18 +0100


Michael,

This will be my last posting on the subject.

You 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.
>
If they have elected not to read the discuss@dnso.org, it's their choice.
As long as it is clear to everybody what the different lists are, and after
the latest messages from Amadeu, I don't see how this could not be the case,
it is the individual people's choice. We cannot force them.
Moreover, even if we could force the messages in their inboxes, I don't see
how we could make sure they physically read them ;>).

> > 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.
>
Maybe.
People who know me think, in fact, that I'm rather foolish, sometimes.
It is *essential* that the decision process should not be limited to BCN +
MTY attendees.
Many people would have loved to participate and contribute, but they were
not as lucky as we both were, and could not attend.
I definitively think we need a way to get them in. Maybe my solution is not
the perfect one, but for the time being it looks to me as the only one.

> 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?
>
I don't want to dismember the DNSO.ORG process, obviously, I just want it to
grow.
Our base is larger and broader, but will shrink again if the process does
not stay open.
We need to bring new people to the open list, and have the discussion going
over there.

At a certain point in time, all initiatives will blend into one open
process: if this is a cultural shock to some, we may as well start to
educate them right now.

Regards
Roberto