Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - correction

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

i think your on the right track here but dont like the idea of asking
someone else to evaluate their observation of interactions within a
constituancy.

the best way for me to put my response to you this:

"i don't think its is proper or relevent for me to evaluate whether the
NCDNH constituancy  is adequately serving Milton's and YJ's needs. i think
that only they are in the position to answer that question. "


----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: "wg Review list" <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - correction


> On 09:51 AM 1/2/01, Ken Stubbs said:
> >if this be the case then what legitimacy does any vote on a questions
like
> ># 4 & # 8
> > > Please remember that not all members of this WG are members of
> > > constituencies. It's also conceivable that 80% of the votes are coming
> >from GA members who have no other means of communicating their opinion in
> > > something resembling a formal methodology.
>
> One need not be in a constituency to have an impression of how they are
> working, obviously. Nor did I invent the questions - I believe that the
> substance of them came from the BoD, yes? It would be more useful if you'd
> addressed the method I suggested for dealing with constituency membership
> and those types of questions - would that work?
>
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html