Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Replacing Section F of the Charter

From: Kent Crispin (
Date: Wed Aug 16 2000 - 12:15:18 PDT

  • Next message: Milton Mueller: "Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Replacing Section F of the Charter"

    On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:32:40PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Kent Crispin" <>
    > > You just invalidated your own argument about motivation. On the other
    > > hand, Adam's point in fact makes a lot of sense. You (and Vany) are
    > > proposing "alternates" or "assistants" who are to take on some of the
    > > work that we elected the adcom for.
    > Huh?
    > Adcom members represent regions. there are 5 of them. Replacement candidates
    > may help, and hey, did you notice that ANYONE can help?

    Fine. Then there is no argument that being alternates will add
    anything to the help.

    > But officially,
    > replacement candidates are not Adcom members and cannot replace their
    > functions. Nor will they, under section F.

    You said:

        The person who is designated a replacement receives some official
        recognition as a kind of officer in the constituency.

    > Does the NCC has so many people willing to work for it that we have to
    > ration and restrict those who can? Did something change while I was sleeping
    > last night?
    > I am puzzled by this debate. I don't think the whole issue is all that
    > important,

    I do think it is important.

    > but the replacement proposal is clearly superior to the
    > alternative,

    Proof by repeated assertion -- how amusing :-). Sorry. It is not
    clearly superior -- in fact, it simply doesn't solve the problem it
    purports to solve.

    > and the arguments against it are obviously straining to come up
    > with increasingly lame excuses.

    You certainly know how to sell a proposal, don't you :-)

    > What is this debate really about? Will
    > someone tell me?

    The debate is about trying to come up with a decent interim charter, so
    we can have a vote. Your proposal is obviously controversial; the whole
    idea of alternates is obviously controversial, whether used for
    seccession or for proxies. As Raul requested in his last message on the
    topic, I put forth Nii's proposal as the last best attempt to move
    forward; you seem deliberately intent on sabatoging that.

    Let me review for you one of your own comments, on Feb 6 of this year:

        Mr. Sadowsky has a point. I don't think Nii's suggestion is
        "simpler" than the other proposal, but I do think we need to get
        beyond this issue.

        I'm willing to give up my opposition to that particular method if
        Raul and Kathy agree.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "George Sadowsky"
    > If all we can do is argue over issues of how
    > we organize ourselves, then this organization isn't worth being a
    > member of.
    > One exxception: I do read and find sensible Kathy Kleiman's
    > occasional posts. I'm glad that she's active in the group.
    > Can we accept Nii's suggestion and get on with real life, please?

    Later Raul and Kathy both agreed.

    Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 12:15:44 PDT