Re: [wg-review] Resumption of Review.

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Greg Burton wrote:

> 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.

Oh.  But, I *did* post my comments, just didn't get any response.

> 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.

I hate to say it, but it is increasingly appearing as if you've been facilitating
more off-list WG discussion than on-list, particularly of late, and especially when
considering what you say further down (i.e., about offlist comments you've received
pertaining to voting on the WG ).

> 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?

Perhaps.  But I think they've still got an ear to the ground on this ML.  So, Mr.
Chair, please bring us up to speed on how we can continue with our program?

> What IS your agenda here, anyway?

DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES, TRANSPARENT PROCESSES, ACCOUNTABILITY, and RESPONSIBILITY.

> 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.

Who knows? perhaps their employers have them handcuffed around their desks.

> > > 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?

I'm being *curious*, not "confrontational".  Why are you on the defensive?

> 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?

No, I have plenty to say.  Please refer me specifically to which clearly stated
issues/questions you're talking about here.

> > > 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.

I have a difference *with* the summary report itself.

> As
> for by whom, who cares?

Well, since it has to do with the WG-Review, I don't think the Chair should be the
one to decide "who cares"?  Why wasn't the post made publicly?  After all, it
appears to have made some impression with you.  Why?

> 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.

No Greg, I don't think that, but it's obvious you do.  That's really unfortunate,
as I don't remember calling you names, Mr. Chair.

Thanks.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.



--
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