Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposals - was Rough Proposals A - H?

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Thanks Greg, but wouldn't a forum be better. I posted before. I can have one
ready in 15 minutes with seperate topics.

It emails you when there is a response to the thread you posted on. So if
you want to hear all topics simply post "checking in" if you have nothing
else to say. Short registration required and you can set your own
preferences as to whether you want them emailed to you or not.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposals - was Rough
Proposals A - H?


> At 09:59 PM 12/30/00, Chris McElroy wrote:
> >Someone awhile back suggested taking these issues one by one. We gonna do
> >that soon?
>
> That's what Rod was suggesting and trying to structure. I'm taking the
> liberty of creating a series of thread headers, one for each general
> position/proposal. Hopefully, this will keep us more focused and
organized.
> I think I was wrong in insisting on all options already presented being
> included - if no one steps forward to advocate a position, it doesn't make
> sense to include it. New Proposals can be started with this format as
well.
> If I've left any out, or if anyone thinks this is too presumptuous, I
> apologize in advance.
>
> As Rod said earlier, it would be really useful to know which questions
> and/or problems/friction areas each proposal addresses. It would also be
> really useful to have included in each proposal
>
> 1. a consideration of funding requirements
> and
> 2. who would need to act on it (ie NC, Board)
>
> Starting List:
>
> 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal A - Eliminate official constituencies,
1
> person 1 vote
>          advocates - Karl Auerbach, ??
> 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal B - Develop Objective Criteria for
> Constituencies
>          advocates - Rod Dixon, ??
> 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - Eliminate NC, keep official
> constituencies
>          advocates - Greg Burton, ??
> 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal D - Reformulate official
constituencies,
> re-allocate NC positions
>          advocates - Joop Teemstra, ??
> 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal E - Add New Constituencies
>          advocates - Jefsey Morfin, ??
> 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal F - Combine Existing Constituencies
>          advocates - ??
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>