[wg-review] RE: ML closure

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

For those who wish to see WG-Review survive with its integrity intact, it's
important to keep one's eyes open and stand firm on the principals of
independence from other parts of DNSO.

The proposed plan to close the ML on April 16 would appear to be an
unilateral decision taken by Mr Shepherd for his own political reasons.
Equally, it could be viewed that the NC as a whole, realizing that this WG
must bite the hand that feeds it, wants to ensure the Review is stopped well
before any possible consensus can be reached that may damage its own
credibility further. Striking out the ML, being the WGs primary
communication tool, would seem the most expedient way to do just that.
However, such a step is risky. It could have the opposite effect of
hastening the NC's demise, by ricochet effect from the GA, incited by
WG-Review participation through an integrated ML. While that may or may not
be a bad thing in the end, those who support closing the WG-Review ML list
and folding it into the GA ML, cannot escape the fact that to do so, would
be using WG-Review as a political tool to accomplish a predetermined end.

I would say that the role of WG-Review is not to engineer solutions by its
own actions, it is to make well-founded recommendations through due
diligence. If the NC are unwilling to listen, then it is not for the WG to
take matters into its own hands in this way. It may rely on the more direct
approaches to the BoD, through the WG-Review ML, new website and ultimately,
reports. At all cost, it must resist being manipulated by individuals with
their own political wish list, as would seem to be the objective in this
latest maneuver.

The terms of reference for WG-Review to which Mr Sheppard refers have been
consistently and vigorously disputed by the majority of members since they
were first posted to the WG-Review ML, which, as it happens, was weeks after
it's formation and its original terms of reference had already been posted
and acted upon. Some Members agreed to participate only on the basis that
sufficient time would be given to address issues properly and therefore it
was decided to stick to the original terms of reference. Some time later, a
schedule of work extending to June 2001 was agreed, and as a direct result
of assurances given by NC members that nobody would "pull the plug" while
useful work was in hand. These assurances would now seem worthless.

While deadlines can sometimes be useful to draw a group into focus,
certainly, there has been no shortfall in that respect for WG-review. On the
contrary, it has staggered from one deadline to the next, with precious
little time to give proper consideration to new issues presenting
themselves, while still managing to formulate appropriate, well considered
recommendations. Aspects need to be considered both in isolation and as part
of the bigger picture.  Nobody would claim these to be trivial tasks.
Obviously, severing the ML now is not conducive to completing a report
comprising substantive documents on a wide variety of topics, neither is
merging it with the busy GA ML at all helpful to this mission. Not all GA
members joined WG-Review, nor should they be forced to do so now by default.
This is likely to confuse, irritate and incite GA members to outrage at
being forced by the NC to accept the burden of WG-Review issues at a fairly
advanced stage, hence the reasoning behind such the proposal to close the ML
is highly questionable.

Had a proper threaded forum been made available to WG-Review from the
outset, as was repeatedly requested of the NC, then better progress could
have been made. However, it was not, and therefore, it is obvious that the
process should continue as set up, in a fully open and transparent process
available to all in the public archive, and entirely separate from general
discussions of the GA, or any other part of DNSO.

Much of WG-Review's work is already in hand, but some key issues have yet to
be discussed in depth and resolved by consensus, one of these being the
future of the NC. As such, it is entirely possible that while this would
appear to be a blatant attempt to strike at the very heart of WG-Review, as
the only means for the NC to ensure its own survival at the end of the
process, it is in fact designed to have the opposite effect.

Sincerely,
Joanna

--
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