Re: [ga] Two things troubling me with the GA Chair elections...

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 7 December 1999, Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:


>
>> One thing's for sure - if the experience of the GA is any guide, someone 
>> will have to organize the at-large constituency.
>> 
>> We've proved pretty well that self-organizing in the open doesn't work.
>
>Actually the IETF demonstrates that it can work if the conditions are
>right and that the interests are roughly aligned.
>
>The destablising force that I believe we have here is the ready creation
>of artificial loons coupled with the almost complete lack of face to face
>contact.
>
>An at-large convention - a physical gathering - would perhaps be "a good
>thing" in this regard.  [Given the geographic issues it could be somewhat
>more complicated, but no more so than how political parties organized in
>the US in the 19th century when travel was much harder than it is now.]

...this would entail local groups meeting to deal with local issues,
regional groups meeting to deal with regional issues, nat'l/nat'l, 
and int'l/int'l.  With attendant fees, regular meetings, and a
somewhat opaque power structure, this almost perfectly describes ISOC.

I'd rather not recreate ISOC, nor would I like to see the ISOC membership
put in place as a "ready-made" at-large membership.

But there's no way you're going to be able to arrange a one-off
physical meeting of those interested in the at-large body.  Too many
people just can't afford it, in time or money.

The problem here is that physical meetings allow the greatest chance
for ID validation, but are also the most prohibitive to those who
cannot afford the cost to attend.  Which is why I believe we need
some alternative system that does not place the burden of cost on
the individual, yet will allow trust to be established.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA