Roberto, you assert that the results are the primary determinant
as to whether the is a good DNSO draft or final set of bylaws .
Respectfully, we disagree. PROCESS is as important or
possibly
even more so than results. Why, you might ask? The answer
is
simple and self evident. You cannot have a good result without
a open, transparent, and accountable PROCESS.
In that the DNSO.ORG bunch has not had a open, transparent
and
accountable PROCESS the results are therefore invalid and cannot
ever reach a consensus by definition.
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Stef,Regards,You wrote:
> This very interesting thread appears to be based on a false
> assumption. The facts of life are that anyone can take the entire
> collection of published drafts and meld them into a composite for
> consideration as a possibility for consensus.
>
I agree.
Just anybody can do it.
But different people will come up with different texts ;>).> That is exactly what Mikki did for ORSC. So, as I see it, the ORSC
> draft may have already done the job you are arguing about "how to do".
> It is hard to know however, as the next DNSO.ORG draft is being kept
> secret until it is completed.
>
> And, at this point, Mikki and some others are about to embark on a
> next round of ORSC draft edits to include still more comments that
> have appeared on the scene. This work will be done in the open as was
> the prior draft.
>
If you continue on this path, we will found ourselves whit the problem of
merging the multitude of drafts that will pop up in the next days from
different sources, each one claiming to be "the ultimate" draft, that meldes
all others ;>).I appreciate the concern about the process, but the important thing is the
result.
For instance, in the ORSC draft
(http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-orsc.proposal.shtml, but I chose the Word
version http://download.dnso.net/dox/politicks/dnso-orsc.proposal.doc
because it has consistent numbering of the articles), already in article III
(Membership), Section 3.1 (Classes) you have a statement on which you will
never get anything close to consensus.> We (of ORSC, et al) do not follow the precept that new drafts should
> be generated in private with a big unveiling when complete. That is
> the mode of drafting used by IAHC and others, with poor consensus
> attracting results. ORSC does no choose to go that route. That way
> there be dragons of exactly the kind that this thread is enouncering.
>
> So, I have to ask, to what extent does our ORSC draft already meet the
> expectations of the next DNSO.ORG draft, if it is trying to do the
> same thing? (Yes, we know it is not really finished yet!)
>
> Are you all sure you are not just redoing Mikki's completed work? If
> you are doing this to seek consensus, I expect you very well might be
> redoing the ORSC work. So, maybe you all woudl rather just join the n
> next round of ORSC editing. It will be done completely in the open,
> just like last time.
>
Not really.
ORSC work was done in the ORSC list, which may well be an open list, but
cannot exactly be claiming to be representative of the whole process that
has been going on.> Also, we only have the same sized window of 3 working days. At your
> current rate of progress in this thread, you will not yet have fond
> consensus on how to proceed with editing before it is too late.
>
> In case you are wondering, the secret is to "Just Do It" (TM Nike),
> and if done in the open, and with daily cycles, it can be made to
> converge very quickly. It is only when you try do it in a restricted
> environement that you get into these messy kinds of arguments.
>
Again, what is important is the result.
If the result meets general consensus, it is good. Otherwise it is not.Regards
Roberto
--
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
