In message <4.0.1.19990111181846.02274e00@pop.clear.net.nz>, Joop Teernstra wri
> 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.
This is plain difficult. I was a long time contributor to the DNSO
discussions and was very fortunate in finding a sponsor to go to MTY.
I would have wanted to be included in the decision making process
(including vote) if I hadn't. However My understanding is that
DNSO.ORG should be run by consensus, if possible.
I think one must differentiate between people who want to be members
of the DNSO.ORG and those who don't. The latter must not be excluded
from the decision making process on the one hand, but on the other,
where does it end?
DNOS.ORG is an organization that is trying to become THE "DNSO".
If some contributors can't accept certain parts of the MTY consensus,
well that's too bad, there are other applicants.
That said, however, I want to see all of them come on board to a
create the truely open, fair, transparent and neutral "DNSO" that many
of us want.
> 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.
Yes, agreed.
> Was the discuss list only created to pay lip service to the idea of
> further input?
Looks like it to me.
> 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)
No, I do not think it was symptomatic. I am sure that it was an
unintentional oversight. I trust Anthony.
> Now the draft is going to be put up for a vote by "the membership", who
> will have the vote?
I am a member of the MTY Drafting Team, which has a mandate to draft
an application that can be submitted to the DNSO. I intend to see that
this mandate is carried out.
> All participants to the discuss list? I asked this question before and
> Roberto had trouble answering it.
I would hope that the Drafting Team can come up with a consensus, eg
an application that is accepteable to so many that no formal vote will
be necessary. And I have made proposals to the Drafting Team to
facilitate this.
> Time for the leadership to decide who is in and who is out.
Ledership? Who is the Leadership? If Amaedu can appoint himself
Leadership so can you.
> Do we have to pay our dues first, before we can vote?
What dues?
el