RE: [wg-review] Constituencies

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

Personally I think that providing any group meets some basic criteria, they should be able to become a Constituency.  I see it as being extremely limiting to only allow specific groups and not considering others.  I would like to see a large number of groups with diverse representations.  I would also see it as an option for new constituencies to be formed by people as they find the current ones do not suit their demographics.  It needs a slight shift in thinking to develop such a system, it would not be the DNSO forming the constituencies but groups of people who share common interests forming their own group and then applying to the DNSO for inclusion.

 

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Roeland Meyer
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 7:02 PM
To: 'dassa@dhs.org'; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] Constituencies

That would work too. But, I don't see much effort on figuring out, how to figure out, which new ones to add. Also, no matter which ones we add, someone will ALWAYS be left out.You can just about bank it.

 

There are two ways to approach such a problem;

1) Create a catch-all constituancy (which may just be the GA), or

2) dump them all.

 

Now ask yourself;

which one's less work?

Which has a higher likelyhood of success, in the near term?

what damages are accrued by the status quo?

which is more difficult to subvert?