[ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes

[David Schutt]

Yes. Let us negotiate a new balance of power based on current circumstances,
and write that balance into the rules of the organization so that it becomes
static and unchanging.

Does anyone remember the phrase 'capture by special interests'?

David Schutt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roberto
> Gaetano
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 1999 9:12 AM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: How not to define membership classes
>
>
> But my understanding is that the "general user" constituency was
> sufficient
> for this purpose. If this is not the case, couldn't we work on that (i.e.
> how to ensure proper representation of the "normal user")? You
> know I am not
> hot on flat individual membership. Isn't it possible to increase
> the weight
> of the User constituency in a different way.
>
>


__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________