[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [discuss] Individual representation
I agree and further state that these arguments, Kent is making, are
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Cthulhu's Little Helper
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 8:40 AM
> On 26 June 1999, Kent Crispin <email@example.com> wrote:
> >In fact, what is absolutely striking about all this is how few
> >people participate.
> >So, I disagree -- the capture scenario is very possible, and all the
> >REAL evidence indicates that the number of people who will
> >participate individually is very low.
> That's not real evidence. First, you are not allowed to
> count physical
> participation at all. At least, not until you manage to pay for
> transportation for every individual wishing to attend these
> meetings in
> person. I would argue that the people physically present in
> any meeting
> are a proper subset of the mailing lists, and should not be
> counted twice.
> Second and most important: The reason participation
> worldwide is so low
> isn't because of a global case of apathy, or because we're
> the only ones
> on the planet who care about this. It's because we're invisible! No
> effort whatsoever has been made to explain any of this in layperson's
> terms to those it affects and who may be qualified to participate. No
> hand has been extended to them in an attempt to get them to join. Not
> a word about this has passed beyond the passive advertisement of these
> proceedings on a few web pages. In short, nobody's bothered to tell
> the world this exists. Until that time, you cannot make any
> about the reasons behind the current levels of participation.