Re: DNSO.ORG Meeting proposal on Jan.23(for the last time)

Michael Sondow (msondow@iciiu.org)
Mon, 11 Jan 1999 18:41:20 -0500


Antony Van Couvering a écrit:
>
> Michael wrote,
> >
> > I submitted both a proposal for a DNSO Membership Committee and a
> > comprehensive commentary on the INTA proposal with alternative
> > wordings and
> > clauses. Others, notably Mikki Barry, have done similarly. Since
> > instead of
> > a vote there is to be a selection procedure by a committee, we
> > shall see if
> > the people who have taken on the responsibility of choosing which
> > proposals
> > are selected for presentation to the participants, and which are rejected,
> > have done their job in a fair and disinterested manner.
> >
>
> This is why meetings should be minuted, so that people can see not only the
> results, but the process by which the results were achieved.

I certainly agree. But you neglected to reply to my second question.

> > > Let's not forget also that the drafting team is composed of
> > people with very
> > > different beliefs/ideas, broadly representing the spectrum seen on the
> > > lists. That will help ensure that no worthy idea will be
> > ignored because it
> > > conflicts with a particular ideology.
> >
> > There has been some disagreement with your assessment of the
> > representativity of the drafting team. Perhaps you haven't been following
> > the list. For your information, suggestions of mine that original
> > organizers
> > of
> > DNSO.org not continue to dominate the drafting team as they have done so
> > far, and be replaced by participants from the meetings or others, was
> > rejected. Dr. Lisse, for his part, protested very energetically,
> > and rightly
> > so, I believe, about not only his removal from the drafting team but the
> > re-chartering and reformation of it by the transition committee,
> > which until
> > now has not had the power to appoint drafting team members without the
> > approval of the membership. I believe that fortunately Dr. Lisse has at
> > least won his own point and been reinstated; but what about the
> > remainder of
> > the team, which will apparently now be picking and choosing among
> > proposals
> > to present in Washington and afterwards, with no criteria but there own
> > opinions to go by? Upon what, if I may ask, do you base your
> > assertion that
> > they represent the broad spectrum of the lists, or even of the
> > participants
> > at the conferences?