Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Joop Teernstra a écrit:
> 
> At 18:35 23/11/98 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> 
> >(BTW, these lists have got me bamboozled. This is the first message I've
> >gotten on any of them
> >for quite a while, except for kent's messages about the meeting notes.
> >Anyway, wouldn't it be better to post to the "participants" list? There,
> >at least, there's some chance of catching a few people who were at the
> >meeting. This "discuss" list hasn't kicked off at all, it seems to me.)
> >
> Michael and all,
> 
> I am surprised to hear you make such a proposal just after lauding the
> openness of the DNSO.
> Are you suggesting that the "participants" are not bothering to follow the
> open list and congregate only on the closed "participants" list?


You're reading into this more than was intended. The DNSO has created a
number
of different lists, not for secrecy or discrimination but in order to
keep some
order between the different tasks. This separation of chores was one of
the things
that made the Monterrey meeting work, and the lack of such definition is
what
has kept the IFWP from functioning as an effective organization.

Anyway, as I say, the DNSO has created different lists for different
tasks, but these tasks
haven't all gotten rolling yet, and furthermore there aren't enough
volunteers yet to
administer the lists. It's possible that the DNSO has been a little too
ambitious with all
its lists, but better to err on the side of too much than too little.

In any case, the accent in the DNSO is more on work than blah-blah. The
only IFWP-
style blah-blah list is the discuss list, and nothing much is happening
on it because 
people don't have a lot more time left for blah-blah. Just as well,
IMHO.

BTW, is it common practice for a person who's subscribed to two lists to
take messages
from one of them and re-post them to the other, like you did with my
message to the DNSO
list? I should have thought that was a breach of netiquette.