Re: [wg-review] GA 2

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

A rosa by any other name should smell as sweet.

Thank you for your valuable input but I keep wondering where you find the
divining rod to determine the intent.

I believe that your use of the term paranoid, if I understand it correctly, is
well placed.

I object to your term evil. Examine your own conscience.  Neither of my
descriptive sides are necessarily evil.  By golly this young internet is
working and that is a good thing, therefore in the long spectrum of things,
those in a position of trust and power (whatever kind, either conferred by
knowledge or appointment) have done an admirable job to this point. My hat is
in hand and I stoop on bended knee in respect to persons such as yourself who
are as much pioneers as Leaf Erickson, for whom my father thought so much he
named me after. Think of the conditions his sailors must have endured so the he
could pioneer so much. That did not make him evil but he did have to recognize
his power base and maintain it.  Ignorance is bliss and knowledge the ruin of
innocence.

What you constantly do in reflecting the history involved here is make it clear
that there were two sides but only propound your side and attack any position
that is or was opposed.  This is unfortunate because you are a wonderful
historian but cannot divorce yourself from the positions you held.  This is not
a bad thing and it just disqualifies you from informational and makes you an
advocate.

Just like this WG you cannot divine the intentions of all involved and when you
speak of intentions it should be mixed with the reality that what you are
referring to is your intentions. Interpreting your input this way makes your
comments again invaluable, because you are a perfect historian for those in
power's point of view and I thank you.

My position is as an observer, all I know of the past is it's recorded history
and all I know of the present is what I observe, including attempted co-opting
of position.

What I said of differing positions is academic and should be viewed with the
same passion as if someone were describing what opposing teams were doing on an
athletic field, they are valueless.

I believe that this discourse is educational for those interested, and as an a
aside I believe that we should not worry so much about the personal vindictives
as they make the reading more interesting, kind of like a novel instead of a
textbook. (just think of the great mini-series, or maybe like survivor) The
positions and what are at stake are not trivial, unless you consider the U.N.
and U.S. Senate and DOC trivial.

Personally I very much respect your position and those of persons like Dyson,
Joop, Conant and Brett. But the hard work of such individuals in neophyte lowly
scribe positions should not be eschewed.

Sincerely,

P.S. I do apologize for any overzealous writing that inferred evil.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 03:03:49PM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> [paranoid stuff deleted]
>
> > The GA as it is, is window dressing to show compliance with the charge of
> > representing the ICW.
>
> Once again, there is a profound misunderstanding, coupled with an
> automatic assumption of evil intent.  That is not *at all* the intent of
> the "General Assembly".
>
> When I went to secondary school (and I believe this was widespread
> common practice), we had what were called "Assemblies".  All the
> students from all the different grades were called into an auditorium,
> and things would be presented.  The various class levels would make
> presentations -- for example, if the sophomore class was on the hook, it
> was the "sophomore assembly", and the sophomore class was responsible
> for the presentation.  I can't remember for sure, but I think that the
> term "general assembly" was used for the case when the school
> administration called the assembly, and there were presentations or
> entertainment for the school as a whole.
>
> The intended meaning of the term "the General Assembly of the DNSO" is
> essentially similar -- it is a gathering of the DNSO as a whole.  The chair
> of the GA presides over the assembly -- the role was primarily intended for
> the case of a face-to-face meeting.
>
> That is, the GA was *never* intended to be a separate body within the
> DNSO -- it is a *meeting* of the DNSO as a whole.  (Assemble is a verb,
> an assembly is a whole constructed from a bunch of parts...).
>
> People who were desperate to view the DNSO as a representative body
> immediately ran with a quite different interpretation of the Bylaws,
> however, and we have been saddled with that misinterpretation ever
> since.
>
> > If we fix it and make it really work then the two
> > positions related above are in danger.
>
> Your "two positions above" are narrow paranoia that is a disservice to
>
> > Therefore this may be the most important issue of all, but it can only
> > occur through the education, communication and outreach which is late on
> > our list.  A review of the June report of the WG on outreach and history
> > to this point is right on point, that was basically killed by the same
> > technique as this WG almost was, timing making it irrelevant.
>
> To be honest, I find your constant presumption of evil intent to be
> tedious and offensive.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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

--
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