Look All Y'All --
The bottom line is, do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the CONTENT of the
PARIS DRAFT?
If you AGREE, then please jsut say YES.
If you DISAGREE, Please say NO, PLUS
PLease say why and offer new text to fix the draft.
All arguments at this point apobut the porcess for birthing the PARIS
draft are pretty much MOOT, unles you are just trying to negate the
progress that it represents.
Frankly, I wnat to spend my limited time to work on fixing what is
wrong with it, in a public discussion forum, than to rehash where it
came from.
Frankly, it came from melding a bunch of unlikely stuff, and rehashing
it all yet again only makes us look back on that awful mess that the
PARIS DRAFT somehow arose from.
In my book, this shows that self organizing complexity arises more
easily from CHAOS than from ORDER. As you are noting, the
circumstances surrounding the PARIS meeting were really chaotic, and
the fact of being chaotic was no doubt a contributing factor in the
birth of the PARIS DRAFT.
So, lets just go forward from here...\Stef
>From your message Sun, 07 Feb 1999 15:12:07 -0500:
}
}Esther Dyson a =E9crit:
}
}> Isn't the DNSO itself a form of "forced arbitration" - or " at least >=
} a committee to come up with some alternatives, some radical > alternativ=
}es"?
}
}I would hope so. But there's a tendency afoot for people and groups to
}equivocate their opinions and policies in order to seem to be arriving at=
} a
}"consensus". This may be necessary temporarily in order to include all
}constituencies equitably in the DNSO's membership, but it won't have been
}useful to institutionalize compromise, before it has been reached, in
}articles or bylaws. These should be for mechanisms to resolve the
}differences, not statements that they don't exist.
