[cc: list edited]
At 1/10/99, 01:15 AM, Michael Sondow wrote:
>Einar Stefferud a écrit:
>> So, we would appreciate it if you would belay your crusade of making
>> false statements about what ORSC is or is not doing.
>
>I made no false statements. The ORSC is attending a closed meeting from
>which the end-users and others have been excluded, after claiming to
>repudiate closed processes. The ORSC has the choice to refuse to go and
>demand that the meeting(s) in Washington be open. If you don't do this, it
>must be because you are looking for your advantage, despite the fact that
>others, myself included, are being denied the chance to participate.
Hi Michael,
Before I describe where I agree with you, let
me describe where we disagree. You appear to
believe that every single meeting in an open
process must be open.
I believe that there *can* be closed meetings
in an open process, if they are part of a *fair*
process. And while I expect to learn more about
this closed meeting before it actually occurs,
until I know otherwise, I will assume that it
is part of a fair process. That's why I am
currently planning on attending.
With that said, I agree with your concerns
about the process involved in the upcoming
closed and open meetings.
Michael, many of the leaders of Open-RSC have
been involved in this debate a long time --
we've seen games before, a lot of them.
That's why I wrote the following inquiry on
another distribution list (edited to protect
private email status):
At 1/8/99, 04:17 PM, Jay Fenello wrote:
>
>Since you've been through this, maybe you can
>explain why XXXXX was offerred a role as a
>"contributing organization," while BWG, ORSC,
>the DNRC, etc. were not?
>
>This is a particularly interesting question,
>given that XXXXXX was admittedly *not*
>involved with the planning of this event.
>
>What exactly are you "contributing"?
>
>Jay.
Remember, nine organizations are designated as
a "contributing organization." Each of these
organizations get to invite three people to a
closed meeting. In turn, these attendees *can*,
depending on the process rules for the closed
meeting, impact the entire event.
I don't believe that anything is going on here,
but asking questions like this is required to
keep the process honest.
So, once again, I suggest that we give the
meeting organizers a chance to describe their
event. If there are problems with their process,
we should be prepared to help them fix it. If
their process is sound, then let's have a great
meeting and get this DNSO off the ground.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.
404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
