Interesting verbal exercise that can be summed up thus:
Any definition
of reasonable "Constituencies" as a part of a membership
structure, is and exercise in futility...
Those whom refuse to learn the lessons of history are domed to
repeat them....
Einar Stefferud wrote:
On the theory that all straight lines are really segments of circlesRegards,
with infinite diameter (and radius;-), I suggest that the problem is
one of not having enough constituencies or too many.If each individual is a constituent and a constituency, this defines
the meeting place of the ends of the continuum line at the other end
of infinity.So, maybe there is a number of consituencies, like 435, or 50, or
maybe even 10 that would make good sense to examine;-)...My idea is that 10 is a good number, because I an find 10 meaningful
constituencies in the DNSO community, adn because trying to get
anythign done with more than 10 or less than 100 members of a Board is
often seen to be impossible. This certainly appears to be true in
this community.My other point is that by defining enough distinct constituencies we
can fragment things enough to prevent take-overs, whcih is one of our
worst nightmares.The other worst nightmare is that of regional hegemony, and trying to
reolve it is leading to constant geopolitical efforts to either stack
the board or to unstack the board. Hence big fights over how to
define a few constituencies and how to overlay geopolitical diversity
requirements on top of business and operational rqquerments on top of
technical competence requirements. This 3 dimentional chaess board is
of course impossible to game thus and leads only to a stalmate all
around.The meta problem of course is one of seeing it all as a zero sum game,
where the objective is to find a way to capture the top of the hill!
My notion is to thus find a way to make it clear that there is no way
to capture the top of the hill, and this leads to a lasrge enough set
of constituencies so that none of them can hope to achieve capture!Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:16:02 +0000:
}
}Michael and all,
}
} We also support the removing of any and all verbiage in any DNSO
}proposal of "Constituencies", an further support that any defined
}"Constituencies" as a part of any membership structure defined
}within any draft proposal for any DNSO proposal is divisive, invalid,
}an attempt to provide by design, special status for special interest
}groups (SIG's).
}
}Michael Sondow wrote:
}
}> William X. Walsh a =E9crit:
}> >
}> > On 29-Jan-99 Mikki Barry wrote:
}> > >>Is there agreement, on this list, that they should be removed to an
}> > >>appendix, and the mechanism for adding new constituencies be expect=
}ed to
}> > >>resolve this at a later time? Could we take a quick 1 day poll?
}> > >
}> > > I move that all constituencies be removed from the draft to be adde=
}d at a
}> > > later date if the need arises.
}> >
}> > Seconded.
}>
}> Thirded.
}
}Regards,
}--
}Jeffrey A. Williams
}CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
}Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
}E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Contact Number: 972-447-1894
}Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
}
}
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
