>>> "avc@netnamesusa.com" 12/18/97 02:37pm >>>
Kevin,
>You are making the chair a committee with this suggestion -- the chair
>essentially performs the function you would assign to a committee. I
>disagree strongly with the idea of having a Consensus Working Group
>-- this will create a very strong, unaccountable power group
I would expect that the Consensus Working Group would be subject to
recall at the pleasure of the Membership; in addition, that the Membership
would have an explicit method for pulling the plug on the Consensus
Working Group concept itself
> who will >have the power to say what consensus is -- and who will
>gainsay them?
The membership
> If experience is any guide, it will be populated by the same
>people who are appointed to POC.
Could you state explicitly what experience you are referring to?
> It would spell the end of PAB as an independent body.
I misunderstand. Independent of what?
>The PAB is an open body where anyone's message is posted to the list
with
>the same weight as another persons.
I don't disagree that the discussion is the heart and soul of PAB. Where I
differ is in the present practice, which might make it a little too easy to cut
off discussion and resort to a vote.
> That is its strength as well as what
>makes it cumbersome. A consensus in PAB, while perhaps difficult to
>achieve, is very strong when it happens. There is no back room in PAB
>when
>it comes to policy issues, and only a minimal bureaucracy.
>Your suggestion makes PAB a representative democracy
That's simply not true. I am attempting to formalize the concept that PAB
pays more attention to what is said rather than who is saying it.
> -- with the Consensus
>WG as the controlling body
Not controlling. More in the nature of a steering committee. A decidedly
diverse steering committee.
>--, except that people won't have a chance to vote.
Oy! Again with the voting shtick. Enough already :-)
>I think PAB is best served by strengthening its participatory character,
>not by moving effective control of the decision-making process to a
>small group.
The observation has been made that ever since CORE got going, the
level of activity at PAB has been approximately nil. I am suggesting that
this WG model might get people interested/active again. What concerns
me is why it is that so many of us are quick to find takeover conspiracies
under every rock and behind every governance proposal?
Kevin J. Connolly
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:16 PST