[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Polls v. Votes and their uses - Was: T.R. had a coffee this morning.

TR - All

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: "Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com>; "atlarge discuss list"
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:02 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] T.R. had a coffee this morning.

> Congratulations.  We now have a "what does Thomas Roessler do or
> think" thread across no less than three mailing lists, it seems.
> That's a really sensible use of everyone's time and bandwidth.  May
> I suggest that you focus on issues instead of people?

Good idea.

> To make this abundantly clear: I have some views on what tools are
> more (or less) appropriate for the GA (votes are not, open polls
> are; as far as substantial topics are concerned).

No Thomas you are wrong and in fact your vision here is fatal to the growth
and building of a unified powerbase here in ICANN-AT LARGE.

> I have these
> views for a reason.  This reason does not apply to an at-large
> membership - the opposite is true: Votes _are_ an appropriate tool
> for an at-large membership organization.

Sort of - What is true is that Open Pools cannot be accurately represented
as the "formal will" of the organization since there is no way to be sure
they are accurate in reality. But then again that may be the intent. To
neuter the powerbase so that it can only give opinions rather than acting as
an empowered political organization.

>  But then again, I'm not
> going to stop you (in fact, how should I even do that?) from using
> open polls if you prefer that.

I would have, myself.

> Thus, it seems like we are in
> "violent agreement" on the substance of what I said, as far as the
> at-large membership is concerned.

I dont want to talk to what you said, but rather the issue of Polls Vs.
Votes... Let me be even clearer. The refusal to not put in place a voting
model and a real process around it ***WILL*** keep this organization, what
it is, a bunch of disharmonized voices bantering at each other in an effort
to see who can scream the loudest and longest.

Bluntly, by comparison, an Open Polling process keeps the membership as what
it is. Powerless. Only a unified concensus process, that is a formal voting
infrastructure and model, will allow this oprganization to grow and have its
word/will counted.

Otherwise, this will always be an organization that CAN and WILL ONLY
PRODUCE RECCOMENDATIONS AND OPIONIONS. If you want to have any political
clout, then stop whining about the process of how complex voting is going to
be to address and live with it, otherwise this is just a bunch of techies
bantering at the wind ... again.

> On 2002-05-30 21:40:32 -0400, Micheal Sherrill wrote:
> >Thomas Roessler has just given us his personal goals.
> No.
> On 2002-05-31 01:23:53 -0400, Micheal Sherrill wrote:
> >We would all profit by thinking through what we want to say before
> >touching the keyboard.
> Yes, indeed.
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de