[wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposals - was Rough Proposals A - H?

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 09:59 PM 12/30/00, Chris McElroy wrote:
>Someone awhile back suggested taking these issues one by one. We gonna do
>that soon?

That's what Rod was suggesting and trying to structure. I'm taking the 
liberty of creating a series of thread headers, one for each general 
position/proposal. Hopefully, this will keep us more focused and organized. 
I think I was wrong in insisting on all options already presented being 
included - if no one steps forward to advocate a position, it doesn't make 
sense to include it. New Proposals can be started with this format as well. 
If I've left any out, or if anyone thinks this is too presumptuous, I 
apologize in advance.

As Rod said earlier, it would be really useful to know which questions 
and/or problems/friction areas each proposal addresses. It would also be 
really useful to have included in each proposal

1. a consideration of funding requirements
and
2. who would need to act on it (ie NC, Board)

Starting List:

3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal A - Eliminate official constituencies, 1 
person 1 vote
         advocates - Karl Auerbach, ??
3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal B - Develop Objective Criteria for 
Constituencies
         advocates - Rod Dixon, ??
3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - Eliminate NC, keep official 
constituencies
         advocates - Greg Burton, ??
3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal D - Reformulate official constituencies, 
re-allocate NC positions
         advocates - Joop Teemstra, ??
3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal E - Add New Constituencies
         advocates - Jefsey Morfin, ??
3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal F - Combine Existing Constituencies
         advocates - ??


Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com