[wg-review] 3.Constituencies - RTF Report
Why is this WG not clarifying statements
made in the RTF Report with respect to its position on Constituencies (and as of
tomorrow, the General Assembly) for posting to the public comment
forum?
Concerns have been
expressed by members about political spin applied by Ms Swinehart to the RTF
preliminary Report with respect to this WGs input. The public
response period for the RTF report ends before this WG completes its current
schedule of work. If it is decided that this WG needs to refute specific
allegations, disassociate itself with certain statements and clarify possible
misunderstandings, it could do so by posting to the public forum before Feb
11th. Concerns
include:-
While general
reference and a link is made in the Appendices to the WG-Review Preliminary
Report of Jan 15th, links to all detailed references are noted by their absence,
thereby making it unnecessarily difficult for those unfamiliar with the work of
this WG to confirm the foundation of claims being made about it. Equally, other
views expressed by this WG in opposition to the general thrust of the report,
significantly, have been omitted.
One such example
would be,
<snip>
2. 2. DNSO Needs
Reformation.
NC should pay attention to the poll result done by WG Review that 97 % people responded YES. [Appendix 1] Some including one of At-Large Board Director, Karl Auerbach recommend to eliminate "Constituency" structure itself, which has not been working out in the DNSO.[Appendix 4] Does it say anywhere
in this RTF Report that this WG has been giving serious consideration to
abandoning the existing constituency structure altogether? If not, why not? If
so, where?
Another aspect that
warrants immediate attention is the allegation that the WG-Review list is
unrepresentative simply because posts have been made by so few people. It could
be argued (and has been), that members do not make a post simply to repeat a
point that has already been made unless they have something to add to it. Does
Ms Swinehart know how many like-minded supporters each vocal member may
have? Of course not. I would also object in the strongest possible terms to the
use of the word "zealot" in connection with this WG and defy Ms Swinehart to
find a single inappropriate post in the new WG
repository website where members have started to organize their
most valuable works.
Sincerely
|