[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) wrote:
> A hundred million people with email, so lets throttle the conference
> down to those with MMX, in order to get diversity???
That's not what I meant. All I suggested is that there be a variety
of tools available for people to use at their discretion.
> Or will you volunteer your real-time transcription service for the
> ROW?
I recall suggesting several months ago that an option be made
available to have audio portions of meetings transcribed so they could
be accessible by people who have access only to text-based tools. I
do not have the skills to do this transcription, but this is one of
the things I would donate money for.
> If the goal of IFWP was to make a perfect NewCo the first time,
> then it has every right to be frustrated. If its goal is to *learn to
> make a NewCo, why should it be?
You will have to ask the people who've been participating in this
process since the beginning about this. I have only been on this list
for about a year, and most of the time has been spent in read-only
mode. Some of the arguments about representation and voting
mechanisms seem to me to be attempts to create a perfect NewCo. My
general feeling is that government is a human artifact, so it will
follow human nature.
> In the absence of any other forum, and in the light of the points
> above, 'where I am going with this' is (lo and behold!) right here:
> this very list is a meeting place, and it has an international
> subscription list -- the only thing is, its about as coordinated as
> the proverbial ball of string-that-is-too-short-to-use.
> If *that proves to be a governance model that can do everything the
> White Paper calls for, wouldnt it be nice to be able to point to
> IFWP as the place where we tested it out?
This list could be NewCo, if that's what the people on the list want
it to be. But it will face the same problems as any other
organization does in trying to gain respect and trust.
--gregbo
