Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

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

On 9 August 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>
>I would like to point out that I don't make these statements in a
>vacuum, nor through fuzzy newage (rhymes with sewage) attachement to
>"rough consensus".  Contrary to your assumption, the decision
>processes of the DNSO were debated at *great* length during the DNSO
>formation process, including voting schemes.  You chose to sit out 
>that debate, and now we are simply repeating it.


Kent, I have an honest question to ask of you:  This is the second
WG I've been in that included you in a member, and this is the second
time, on two completely unrelated WGs, you've used this "already-trodden
path" argument to wave away someone's ideas.

Why, if all of these things have already been discussed in such great
detail, are there WGs formed around them?  And why do you insist on
participating if the discussions have already been held and the
decisions already made?

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org