[wg-review] Bounced message from Jon

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

X-Sender: weinberg@mail.msen.com
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:23:26 -0500
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Subject: Re: [wg-review] role of the WG

         I had suggested in an earlier message that this WG should suggest 
an alternative to the constituency structure for the DNSO, as well as 
making less sweeping recommendations.  But Milton makes a good point:  If 
this WG succeeds in carefully documenting and explaining the problems it 
finds with the current DNSO structure, it will have done a great 
service.  Moreover, even though we won't have unanimity on the nature of 
the problems, documenting and explaining them is a realistic goal.  It 
would be a shame if we ended up accomplishing nothing at all because we 
bogged down in disputes over which alternative is the best.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com




At 01:57 PM 12/30/2000 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Given our time limits, I think the best thing this WG can do is identify 
>and carefully document problems, and make it clear to NC and the Board 
>that these problems need to be addressed.
>
>We can make general suggestions as to how to remedy the problems, but we 
>should not confuse that with a redesign the DNSO. We don't have the time 
>or the authority to do that.
>
>We don't even have to decide on a single, exclusive course of action. For 
>example, whether we like constituencies or not. We can identify problems 
>and report back: "some people say these problems are inherent in the 
>constituency structure and propose to eliminate them altogether. other 
>people say we need to add new constituencies. Others propose to redefine 
>the process for creating constituencies, or restructure constituencies."
>
>If we try to come up with The One True Solution to the DNSO's problems we 
>will not accomplish anything.