RE: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 14:56 9/01/01 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Members will naturally self-organize into groups once the list becomes
>unmanageable under the opposing model a. Under this model, (model b) you are
>imposing a barrier to entry in that Individuals would have to join yet
>another group/ association before membership of IDNH was allowed. I don't
>support this "top down" model for that reason.
>
Joanna,

I strongly agee with allowing factions or parties to form naturally around
principles and personalities.
For model B. someone (the NC?) would still have to create an entire
constituency charter, specifically dealing with an organization composed of
multiple organizations. This is far from a trivial exercise.

Each of these organizations would have to have charters as well, to be
created from scratch and to be approved by the .
Looking at the time it took the NCDNHC to agree on their charter, you are
talking about at least a year to accomplish that.
A giant step back from what we have now. For what??

As of now, we have already a charter that has been much discussed (fought
over) and ratified by a large number of typical Individual DN owners.
The membership criteria that Joanna distilled from the IDNO site are workable.
Charter modifications have a straightforward procedure.

>I agree with Chris and David 100% this needs further discussion after the
>consituency is in place, but first we need to agree there is to be IDNH
>constituency (did we do that by formality yet?)

It is currently up on the Polling Site for everybody's vote.


--
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