Re: [wg-review] 3.Constituencies - RTF Report

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

This posting made me stop and evaluate something which I just took for
granted as a good Idea - "No cross posting to other lists".  Now I
wonder if that is such a good idea.

As many of us do not understand technology and therefore are frightened and avoid details regarding it, the same can be said for political maneuvering, most of us do not understand it and therefore hold it in disdain and do not participate in it.  This reality is the single highest threat against active participation and representation.

It may well be the time for this WG to engage in politics in order to be properly heard.  I do not like the road it takes us down, but if that is where the powers that are have positioned the water then we must go down it in order to drink.

regretfully,

Joanna Lane wrote:

 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