I would be delighted to see some buy-in and then indeed I'm sure Denise
at least would pay attention. Getting the board interested is an even
greater challenge, but yes, let's include it in the draft if there is
some visible interest.
Esther
At 08:53 PM 7/28/2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:
At 05:14 p.m. 28/07/2002 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
good idea..... but I've tried it before and it seems to have no
traction. ANyone else??
Esther,
I remember that you mentioned representation based on Parties in an
interview some time ago, but that was all.
If you had actually put Denise to work on writing draft parliamentary
rules under which such a system could work, you would see instant traction.
But it seems you yourself are only luke-warm to the idea, seeing it only
as a solution for the "long term".
I see it as the quickest way to stop much of the internecine bickering
and fighting for control that will otherwise dog At Large organizing efforts.
Fact is that different individuals have different priorities and points
of view and will want to flock around different representatives.
Fact is that it personality conflicts between representatives drain a
huge amount of energy out of a united effort, preventing constructive
work on real issues.
Multi-party representation provides the only solution to those problems.
--Joop
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800 -- fax 1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com
The conversation continues..... at
http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de