Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] - informal snap poll

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

>An informal poll for this working group, using some of  the constituency 
>questions, is at http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p1puu4w_a .Results can be 
>viewed at   http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a

At this point, 9 people have completed the poll. I find these prelim 
results interesting, but hope we get a larger sample of the working group 
(hint, nudge).

-> "Is a constituency structure a functional method for subgrouping in the 
DNSO?"  5 yes, 4 no.

This is a much more even position than I would have thought. The only other 
question this evenly split regards how or by whom an individuals' 
constituency should be implemented.

On the other hand, there is a near-consensus (all or all but one) on the 
following statements (rephrased from the questions):

The current constituency structure impacts the effectiveness of the DNSO 
and NC negatively.
The current process rarely or never promotes the development of overall 
community consensus.
All DNSO interests are not adequately represented in the existing 
constituency groups.
An individuals' constituency should be created (though nothing resembling 
consensus on how).
The constituencies should be reformulated (again, nothing resembling 
consensus on how).

Also of interest, no one has been willing to say that the constituencies 
adequately represent their intended members. Nor has anyone been willing to 
say that all important parts of the Internet community are represented.



Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com