Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:01:36PM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:
> At 11:16 AM 12/29/00, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >Please note that the purpose of this WG is to identify ways to make
> >the DNSO more productive.  That purpose is not at all served by trying
> >to change the fundamental structure of the DNSO.
> 
> Unless the "fundamental structure of the DNSO" is part of the problem. Many 
> people seem to think it is.

"Many"?  Many people think the earth is flat, you know :-)

There is no doubt that the constituency structure is imperfect, just as 
there is no doubt that democracy is imperfect.  

> >  Instead, such attempts are certain to be disruptive in the extreme, and 
> > to totally paralyze the
> >DNSO.
> 
> Kent, it already appears paralyzed - that's part of the problem then,
> isn't it?

You need to think about the premises behind that question.

1) What, in particular, are the results that are expected of the DNSO?  
In fact, it *has* produced several general policy documents, and if 
those are the expected output, then no, the DNSO is not paralyzed at 
all. 

2) A related question: what are the metrics by which the output of the 
DNSO is to be judged, and who determines those metrics?

3) Are expectations/metrics for the DNSO realistic?  Is it even 
possible, for example, for detailed policy to be developed in large 
groups? 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain