RE: [wg-review] RE:Voters should indicate if they voted

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 10:41 AM 1/31/01, Joanna Lane wrote:
>I would object to this motion. While the electoral register is a matter of
>public interest, whether or not I voted is a private matter between me and
>my conscience. Anyway, voted on what? Some people may have voted
>selectively.

I agree with these statements, completely. It is no one's business how 
anyone else voted, or whether or not they did.

We need to remember WHY we have votes in this WG, which is a widely 
expressed concern about the claims of "consensus" made without 
documentation in prior DNSO activities. If we had been operating under 
other procedures, I could simply have declared, as chair, that we had 
achieved "consensus" on a wide variety of topics. Some people have claimed 
that that has happened before.

We also need to remember why the WG exists. On one level - the chartered 
level - it exists to produce material on DNSO process, procedures, and any 
necessary changes. On another level, the group is a lab for trying to 
determine what works and what doesn't in this process. Despite any concerns 
about the task force report, we need to recognize that the Names Council 
has made an extraordinary effort to allow us to do that.

As has been mentioned here, and yesterday on the General Assembly list, 
off-topic spam and bickering reduce the desire of people to participate. A 
WG is for work. If we want more participation - and we should - then 
badgering people about their personal decisions is counterproductive. It's 
also extremely rude to people who spend their time and effort on 
substantive materials for the group, and to those badgered.

I'm beginning to develop a theory, and I'd like comments on it privately. 
It seems that for some people, the task of battling what they perceive as 
unfair process has become such a habit that when any real reason for that 
goes away they become lost, and look around for something that will allow 
them to continue their habit. For others, arguing about process allows them 
to feel like they're participating even when the topic is one they don't 
understand or have nothing to say about. Yet others are genuinely concerned 
with process, but recognize when and where it's material to the process and 
when it isn't.

In the meantime, I'd request that people let this entire topic drop. We 
should start considering what should be done about the General Assembly, 
hopefully continue discussion on the differing models of constituencies 
that have been presented to us, and addressing topics of a serious nature 
in the task force report.


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