In message <36993338.2D39E6E6@iciiu.org>, Michael Sondow writes:
> Okay, now that we've cleared that up, maybe we can straghten out this
> multiple draft stuff.
>
> From what I understand, the Monterrey drafting team has finished a final
> draft of the Monterrey consensus. Then, they have made a MTY/INTA merged
> draft, which is not yet finished, but presumably will soon be posted in a
> more or less final form for discussion.
I read that slightly different. We have finished a final MTY
draft. Then Kent made a MTY/INTA merge, which has substantial
problems.
> The status of that merged draft is unclear to me and, I believe, to
> the participants, if they even know about it, which seems
> doubtful. Is it just an alternative proposal? Is it the draft
> offered by the leadership as the best DNSO.org application proposal?
I am unaware that is has been sanctioned in any way by the Drafting
Team. My feeling is, if we can come to a consensus we should, but I do
second and support your reservations/objections (to the "Over my Dead
Body" strength :-)-O)
> Finally, there is, I believe, a new drafting team that will presumably
> present a third draft proposal made up of the Monterrey draft, the merged
> MTY/INTA draft, and all the comments received and collated up until now.
My feeling is, if we can come to a consensus we should.
> This is my understanding of the present situation, Eberhard. But it
> would be useful, I think, if people working on these three projects
> could comment on this outline, clear up what is not clear (like the
> confusing status of the MTY/INTA merged draft), and reaffirm, if
> it's still true, that the participants will be given the opportunity
> to dicuss, debate, and choose between all three (if that's the
> case).
> Because, as Eberhard says, the participants may want to simply
> reject the merged document and the recent comments, and confirm the
> Monterrey draft.
I am not in favour of this happening, however, we should try and get
all diverging "constituencies" to agree to a fair, open, neutral and
transparent consensus :-)-O
> I know that Lynn posted her summaries about all this (which you may
> have missed, Eberhard), but they weren't as clear as they could
> be. So, could we get it straight, drafting teams and leadership?
>
> How's that, Eberhard?
>
I propose that we take the Draft 7 aka Final MTY and add, in [] all
changes (with replacing language) with attribution to their authors
and item numbers.
Something like this:
sensibble blah, blah
[very sensibble blah, blah, INTA #1]
[even more sensible blah, blah Michael Sondow #2]
Then everyone on the Drafting Team can go over this at home, grade
each comment as in:
OK, Hambaa, Ouch, Dead Body
and we can go through this by the numbers. We get consensus for an
item, or something we can live with, we accept it, cross out the
others and move to the next item.
Not much discussion during the Teleconference, or better even none at
all. Everyone can, if so wanted, post to the list beforehand so we
might even get consensus on some items beforehand.
[Hambaa is Oshivambo for "I am astonished" :-)-O]
el