[wg-review] Back to the point -Constituencies
In my submission, I
advocated against having formal constituencies.;
1) We don't really
know what they are
2) How to build
them
3) How to authorize
them
3) How to organize
them
4) How to apportion
their politcal weight.
While Dassa's
submission has some merit (I'm still going over it, it's a lotta work). It still
assumes a need for heirarchical structure. Yes, it scales. However, due to it's
size, getting consensus on it is problematic. Especially within the time-frame.
We simply haven't the time to get the buy-in.
Getting rid of them
now, folding all the power into the GA, and assigning working groups to do that
job the way it ought to be done, is more sensible and practicable, IMHO. Then,
when we have the membership that warrants such scalibility, we will be ready
with a better defined idea of how constituencies work or should work. Shucks, we
may even have consensus on them, by then.
It is clear to me,
now, that the current constituency system is severely broken, for all
definitions of "broken", and should be done away with.
-- |