[ga] Re: Policy development / improving Task Forces.
On 2002-04-04 17:36:06 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> - Composition of task force (this was not in the call): Limited;
> members from those constituencies/interest groups concerned.
> This should always not be limited to the members of a certain SO
> (assuming that there will be SOs), but there should be a
> flexible way for other groups to participate if needed.
> Example: The GAC should probably participate in policy
> development on issues they have introduced into the discussion,
> such as country names in .info. With other topics, consumer
> advocates, experts, etc., should be included.
Maybe I should have phrased this in a clearer way in the first
place. I am certainly not thinking about having council members (as
far as councils continue to exist ;-) be the only ones who
can/should do the work. In fact, this would imply a huge work
burden on council members, which may not be bearable, and may not
lead to optimal results.
The things I like about task forces are these:
- The number of participants in discussions is limited. In
particular during conference calls, more participants mostly mean
more noise and more time wasted; to a lesser extent, the same is
true on mailing lists. (On the other hand, it's less effort to be
a nuisance on a mailing list than on a conference call.)
- You get people onto the group who make a commitment to actually do
the work, and who will have to take the blame if the work fails.
This motivates. Of course, this does not prevent free riding
entirely, but it certainly helps to reduce it.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Have a nice week-end,
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html