Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 02:40 PM 17/05/02 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>Friday, May 17, 2002, 2:43:10 PM, Gary Osbourne wrote:
> > ...When does the
> > BoD get its first surprise quiz on BIND security flaws,
> > and how will those BoD members who fail be replaced?
>
>Again, that is your opinion (not one that I share)
>that that level of technical knowledge is required.

Not at all. It was just one example. One could as
easily give BoD members an exam on the UDRP, EG:
Did the complainant or respondent prevail in the
barcelona.com case?
and probably get most of the same failures. But
by all means let us leave these individuals in
charge, rather than those *uninformed* ones who
could pass both exams.

>I do not agree with that, and I am CERTAIN there
>is no consensus to support it.

There is not even a consensus to support a
consensus definition of what consensus means,
so you are probably safe in your certainty.

>I see no compelling reason to a requirement
>such as that.

So we should have a requirement for an
*informed* electorate, but not have such
a requirement for those elected. When arguing
such positions, please show your work, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to follow.

>There is a difference between REASONABLE
>and UNREASONABLE standards.

And who will be in charge of setting those
standards? You and/or Kent Crispin? That
should make for a low voter turnout. -g

--
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