[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.

I suggest that we get info, on the working groups, on the web-pages and
out of the dark. Let's shed some light on this.
Toss a URL here. Group 2 doesn't trust group 1 anymore than group 3
does. It is trivial to understand that is why they exist. There has been
entirely too much mis-assumed trust here. It is also trivial to
understand that group 2 wants to use process to bridge the gap between
group1 and group 3.

For a bunch of "rocket scientists" we sure seem to be ignorant about
consensus-building and trust issues. Why is that?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Javier
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 9:17 AM
> To: discuss@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report
> from the DNSO
> front.
> Mark,
> Excellent analysis of the situation.
> The compromise of group 1 with group 2, in the pNC, has been
> to create a
> committe that has to come out, within three weeks, with
> procedures for the
> operation of working groups. As soon as those procedures are
> in place, the
> new working groups will comply with the procedures determined by the
> committee. Once the committee reports, the GA will have to be
> consulted
> before the procedures are finally approved, as with anything else that
> comes out of a working group.
> This will, of course, not make everybody happy, and the
> criticism (some of
> it in the form of personal insult) will continue in this
> list, but what is
> at this point very clear is that anybody who wants to participate
> constructively in the process can do it by either
> participating in the GA
> or in the working groups.
> Javier
> At 08:29 30/06/99 -0700, Cthulhu's Little Helper wrote:
> >
> >On 30 June 1999, Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mark,
> >>
> >>If I have ever met you, it escapes my memory.  Therefore, I
> >>guess this is your way of saying "hello, nice to meet you..."
> >
> >No.  However, I was addressing your points, and not you, directly.
> >My greetings are usually a bit friendlier than that.
> >
> >>
> >>Cthulhu's Little Helper wrote:
> >>> Translation:  "I agree with Roeland here."
> >>
> >>As this is an introduction, I would like to request that you
> >>not attempt to "translate" any of my comments.  If you want
> >>me to post in Japanese, than feel free to translate...  If I
> >>am vague, by all means ask for clarification.
> >
> >
> >I apologize.  That was a heavyhanded and childish tactic for me to
> >use.  It was only meant to express how I interpreted your statements,
> >and how very upset they made me.
> >
> >However, if you feel Japanese would suit you better, just let me know
> >whether you'd prefer JIS, S-JIS, or EUC, and I'll do my best to
> >struggle through it.
> >
> >[...snip!]
> >
> >>
> >>The only possible constructive comment I can add, is that if you
> >>are looking for consensus (which is what I interpreted part of
> >>Roeland's post to be about) jumping on someone who you think is
> >>disagreeing with a point, attempting to change their words to suit
> >>your point of view, and in a round about way, calling them dishonest
> >>will not result in any form of consensus.
> >
> >Richard, I wasn't changing your words to suit my view.  I was
> >attempting to demonstrate how your words may easily be interpreted.
> >If you feel that this interpretation is wrong, then I would ask that
> >you either rephrase what you said so that the interpretation isn't
> >possible, or that you support those statements with reasons
> acceptable
> >to all.  My methods may be juvenile at times, but my point stands.
> >
> >>
> >>By the way, I really don't understand the reference to Bill Cosby...
> >>
> >
> >Bad attempt at an obscure gelatin reference, and people's desire to
> >occasionally attempt to nail it to flat vertical surfaces. ;)
> >
> >Anyway, back to consensus.
> >
> >I was thinking last night after I wrote this, and this morning as
> >well.  Consensus seems to be the major stumbling block for all of us
> >at this point.  One the one claw, we have a group of people (many of
> >whom currently sit on the pDNC) who are primarily focussed on the
> >deadlines they must meet, and thus want to move ahead.
> >
> >On the other claw, we've got a group of people who feel that nothing
> >can move forward until there are a set of accepted procedures within
> >which to work.
> >
> >On the third claw, we've got a group of people who feel the first
> >group and others have excluded and disenfranchised them.
> >
> >The problem?  No consensus.  Group 1 doesn't share the views
> of groups
> >2 or 3.  Group 2 doesn't grok Group 1's points, and group 3 doesn't
> >acknowledge the validity of group 1 to a large extent.
> >
> >(pardon me if these characterizations are not completely accurate.
> >Let's work with them for the sake of argument.  The main point is not
> >these characterizations, but what follows.)
> >
> >So, what can we do:
> >
> >I think we could all benefit if we take a deep breath, step back, and
> >spend a minute acknowledging each others points here and there.
> >
> >(what follows is the main point.  Unfortunately, it's tainted by my
> >particular position, and may seem unduly harsh with respect to the
> >pDNC.  Please feel free to rationally offer alternatives.)
> >
> >The pDNC should state publically that they recognize the absence of
> >certain constituencies and their lack of representation, and that any
> >work they do will be conducted with this in mind.  Some said as much
> >in the 6/25 meeting.  It'd be nice to see it in writing.
> >
> >Furthermore, the pDNC should publically acknowledge the need
> for order
> >and structure in their meetings, and in their WG's.  They should make
> >a visible effort to adopt and abide by a set of procedures,
> processes,
> >and rules that will govern how they conduct their business.
> >
> >Now.  The procedural camp (group 2) needs to acknowledge
> that the pDNC
> >is working under tight deadlines that they have little control over.
> >It would behoove everyone if groups 1 and 2 could sit down and decide
> >on a set of procedures and processes.  Roeland has been
> visibly trying
> >to do this, but so far it's been pretty much a one-man act.  If the
> >pDNC would agree to work towards this goal for a period of X days (a
> >week sounds fair), then the issue would go away, assuming something
> >can be agreed upon, and everyone works within the framework that's
> >built.
> >
> >Group 3...well, group 3 isn't easy at all.  However, while I was
> >thinking about all of this, it occurred to me that the main issue at
> >this moment isn't representation.  Don't get me wrong, that's a VERY
> >important point, and one that will continue to be pushed until it is
> >realized.  But right now, what seems to breed the most discontent
> >between groups 1 and 3 is that group 1 keeps insisting that group 3
> >has no place in the organization, or that said place is already
> >subsumed by the GA or another constituency.  Group 3 keeps chafing at
> >this.  Perhaps if Group 1 were to publically recognize group
> 3, things
> >may be easier.  Now, I'm not suggesting that the pDNC come out and
> >accept the IDNO.  I'm just saying that some form of public statement
> >by group 1 that addresses this missing piece of the representative
> >puzzle may help.  In essence, some nod towards the lack of adequate
> >representation, as I mentioned above while discussing gorup 1.
> >
> >And the members of group 3 should perhaps refrain from being so
> >nonproductively voiciferous about the issue that it impedes all
> >progress and taints the effort they're making.  And if any finger's
> >being pointed here, it's as much at myself as at anyone, so please
> >don't read anything into that which isn't there.  Right now, things
> >are hostile to a point that it's harming both camps.  This can't be
> >good for any of us, and most certainly isn't good for the various
> >interests and entities many represent.
> >
> >In short, I think perhaps we need to stow our egos, shut our mouths,
> >realize that we all just may have a valid point or three, and see how
> >much work we can get done with all this in mind.  Because our current
> >method, with everyone running about, believing that their vision is
> >the correct one, isn't buying us much.  If we can acknowledge that we
> >all have different views on certain issues, and see how we can work
> >together somewhere between those views, maybe we can make some
> >headway.
> >
> >--
> >Mark C. Langston				Let your voice be heard:
> >mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
> >Systems Admin
>San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org