Re: [ALSC-Forum] Monday outreach meeting

[Mikael Pawlo]

At 19.01 -0400 01-08-07, Esther Dyson wrote:
>re the end: No, it's a very broad question. For whom do people on lists
>speak? For whom do voters speak? How can one tell?  I think it's a pretty
>fundamental question (set of questions).   HOw should we interpret a bunch
>of postings on a list when we are looking for the existence of consensus?

Why should the study committee look for consensus? The consensus issue
freeze framed the IFWP process and an independent study like this one is
probably more interesting without a consensus.

Further, why are you posing the question *now*? Iam stunned that you choose
to pose the question at such a late stage. Do you not know why you started
this forum in the first place?

If I were on the study committee I would study a posting on its merits. To
the study committee it really should not matter if a constituency or a
private individual submit a view.

>Re your frustration:  It seems to me there is a lot to give input into,
>starting with four options we are toying with, plus lots of questions.

What four options?
In the discussion paper of July 12, 2001 there are no option, just a lot of
questions. At the At Large Study Committee web site there is an "option
template" with options A, B and C, namely three options. Is there another
document with more options? Further - it is stated that I can submit my wn
option - but I can not find any means to do it in practice.

Regards

Mikael Pawlo

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                              mailto:mikael@pawlo.com
  +46-704-215825                              http://www.pawlo.com/