Re: [wg-review] Resumption of Review.

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 01:30 PM 2/14/01, Sotiropoulos wrote:
>Well, for one, there was a schedule set up for the WG-Review, it seems to me
>that we are more than "two days" behind that schedule.

You know, if you have or had something to say about the NC structure or 
Working Groups - or any comments on the draft bylaws on GA (which was 
submitted for discussion) - you don't need my permission to post them. Nor 
does anyone else. Or did you think that the job of the chair is to 
spoonfeed members of the WG? I don't - I said when I took this on I would 
stop advocating in the WG in order to facilitate. If the members don't 
contribute, there is nothing to facilitate. And for the record, we're about 
4 days behind - if anyone has something to discuss. I haven't seen any 
additional material to vote on besides what I've provided. If I've missed 
some motion made by anyone else, I'm sorry - please point me to it.

> > I'm also perplexed as to why
> > there were so few posts about General Assembly questions, and none about
> > the Names council questions.
>
>Probably because there is no definition of the GA.  The WG is not here to
>provide one, but to honestly point out the fact that there is no clear answer
>as to what the GA does, how it operates, nor what its ultimate 
>responsibilities
>are.

Everyone knows that it's badly defined - it's even in the task force 
report. To me, defining a possible role for the GA is FAR more on topic for 
a working group that's supposed to be reviewing procedures than a good many 
other things that have been discussed are.

> > I'm perplexed as to why so few people posted
> > comments on the task force report, too. As to the status of the WG, we're
> > still operating, if there are people left who have something to say on the
> > topics.
>
>I think there are still plenty with lots to say, I just think they've gone to
>ground due to the apparent switch of focus by many members of the WG, 
>including
>yourself.  In poin of fact, I'm thinking a lot of others are wondering just
>what is going on here.

Or they all rushed off to work on the atlarge, as you've been urging people 
to do? What IS your agenda here, anyway? And if anyone else is wondering 
what's going on, they can ask for themselves. I don't buy the "I'm speaking 
for a silent group who need me to articulate this for them" school of 
rhetoric, from anyone. No one is preventing WG members from posting themselves.

> > Off list, several members of the WG have expressed concern in the last
> > couple of days about votes. Their concern has been based on appearance is
> > that there are so few members left that any vote will simply be waved off
> > as unrepresentative.
>
>Why don't we try voting on this very question... on-list.  In other words let
>us vote on the question: "Shall we have any further votes on the WG?" and see
>what happens.

I just asked the question - sheesh, why don't you try responding to the 
request for comments instead of taking this confrontational approach? It's 
really unnecessary. Now you're reopening the "voting on list" subject - 
that's real constructive. I take it you have nothing to say about the Names 
Council questions or working groups, either?

> > The suggestion has been made that we simply try to
> > summarize material, and incorporate minority opinions on the summaries into
> > the report.
>
>By whom?  What exactly does "incorporate minority opinions" mean exactly?

It means if someone has a difference of opinion with the summary report, 
their material gets included without editing by the chair or the group. As 
for by whom, who cares? If you really want to know, I'm sure the person who 
suggested it will tell you, but I don't violate private email for someone 
who seems to think he's the Grand Inquisitor.


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