RE: [ga] geographicals

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 04:03 03/09/01, Ladi said:
>Perhaps an acceptable compromise would use the complete congress as a
>model and create a body of representatives using geographical divisions
>and another that ignores them. Not that I particularly like more
>processes to get anything done, but it might make the most people happy.

Dear Ladi,
as you may have noted this is exactly what the MoU, every @large 
organization and Danny proposes.

9 Directors for the netwide concerns by the infrastructure oriented SOs.
9 Directors for the stakeholders. Currently 5 on a geographical basis and 4 
(BoD squatters, hardly elected) on and ad-hoc basis. Danny proposes 9 on a 
geographical basis.
1 Director by the Staff.

The problem with the current areas is their population/economical/network 
specific unbalance.

IMHO you concern is not appropriate: the target is not to have anyone 
represented. But to make sure a) the Directors are the most diversified in 
their origins b) proximity ties among @large people may develop.

Jefsey


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html