RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> |>I think that it would be a mistake to try, at this time. First, let
> us
> |>consider that we need to go there. Then we figure out the way.
> 
> Personally I consider it a mistake to give up an abolish such a
> structure.  Re-structuring is a much more attractive option.  I have
> not seen much along these lines however.  It all seems to be either
> they remain or they go.
> 
> Why aren't alternatives being considered?

The basic problem is that no one can show agreement on how to decide which
constituencies to form, how to form them, and how to integrate them once
they are formed. While it may have been an interesting political experiment,
it failed. Actually, I maintain that is was less benign  but, that doesn't
matter now. 

It's all very well to declare "bottoms-up" but, doing it is another story,
as we've been seeing. The NCDNHC has been having problems with this and we
know about IDNO. But, let's look at sucesses like the BC. Well, relative
sucesses ... The point is that none of us knows how to do that job and we
shouldn't be specifying something that we don't know how to do, as a
collective.

We need to seriously look at the prime engineering doctrine of KISS! If we
KISS the constituencies, they dry up and blow away, as being much to complex
for what they are supposed to do. They divide efforts, resources, and focus,
in an initial group that is too small to tolerate that. The IFWP was moving
forward because it had critical mass. Active participants, in the DNSO, is
about 400-600, and that's being generous. Yes, potentially, there are a lot
more DN owners(millions). But, they aren't here yet. We need a structure
that can grow, but doesn't divide us whilst we are still small.

You don't build QEII when all you need is Harper's Ferry.
--
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