[discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Dec 21 15:27:55 UTC 2013
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
> People interested on particular subjects and willing/able to contribute
> will join the specific "group" and mailing list without the need to be
> nominated or elected as a representative. Leaders for each group will
> flourish naturally from the group.
This is like already dissecting what is yet to get whole ;). Since i
joined the mailing list, there havn't been any specific subjects/topics
apart from those major of committee formation. I will rather suggest those
"particular subjects" be discussed right on this single list. The scenario
you are suggesting is related to that of IETF wg formation and i just think
1Net may be too young for that; otherwise we will start witnessing less
participation on the various groups(mailing list) proper coordination may
also be imparted.
> My .02
> > On Dec 20, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldwide at gmail.com>
> >> On Dec 19, 2013, at 11:34 PM, George Sadowsky <
> george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I largely agree with Andrew's view of this issue.
> >> We have a multitude of issues in the IG space that could stand
> increased understanding and improvement. If we could focus on the issues
> and work toward that increased understanding of the issue, the
> alternatives, and the pros and cons of the alternatives, then we might be
> making progress toward improving IG.
> > Likewise, and not to put words in my colleagues' mouths but in hopes of
> moving this line of thought forward….
> >> Michael Gurstein and I had what I thought was a useful exchange a few
> weeks ago. The hypothesis that I think we tended to agree upon, more or
> less (Michael, please correct me if you disagree), was the following
> (somewhat simplified): that the fight over representation is really a proxy
> war; the real fight -- the hidden fight -- is over different opinions on
> issues, and the representation fight allows the issue fight to be hidden.
> >> To the extent that this is the case, the representation fight obstructs
> getting to the issues and is counterproductive to our work. Let's get
> directly to the issues. In doing so, let's realize that agreement on
> issues cuts across stakeholder silos, and let's rethink how best to
> structure these conversations.
> > I read this post, and have watched how the discussion has evolved,
> particularly on the subject of "representation".
> > One of the things that Andrew alluded to earlier in the thread was
> "rough consensus" as a component of "do stuff; structure later." This
> aspect of the suggestion being made hasn't been called out, but I think
> it's critically important, for two reasons:
> > 1. "rough consensus" as it's generally understood in a lot of
> so-called "technical community" circles is not unanimity and does not
> reduce to vote-counting. It means more or less that everyone's been heard,
> everyone's had an equal chance to speak, and not everyone is completely
> happy with the outcome but almost everyone can live with it. It's a useful
> concept for moving conversation forward in situations where the
> participants adamantly refuse to appoint others to speak for them or
> "represent" them….and yes, this is a big part of how we got the Internet we
> have today on the technical side: there was a lot of personal interaction
> and trust among the "pioneers," but assuming they always agreed on answers,
> or even interests and priorities, would be inaccurate. They didn't, and
> their successors don't.
> > 2. One of the features of the "rough consensus" approach is that
> committees, working groups, and other subsets or their "leaders" do not
> have to be "representative" in any conventional sense to serve the function
> of moving the group towards recognizable and actionable consensus. The
> question of whether a result has the support necessary to be actionable
> within the group is moved from a question of *who* is making the decision
> to *how* it's being made, with the entire group in a position to see and
> judge where consensus is formed.
> > It's possible to have significant levels of administrative effort
> expended around forming and judging positions on issues, but one advantage
> of such an approach is that it sidesteps the question of "representation"
> in the process of getting to those issues. It's also somewhat
> self-limiting, in that a steering committee or leader who consistently
> oversteps the will of the group is likely to find themselves on the sharp
> end of a consensus that they be replaced.
> > Such an approach is not always appropriate, but I humbly suggest that
> for the proposed function of the 1net steering committee, it's a good start.
> > I think the 1net steering committee needs to be about "Let's get some
> stuff done" (John Curran has provided several good descriptions of the kind
> of stuff that needs doing, as have others), and letting the system evolve.
> I'm lots less interested in who is on the steering committee, especially
> initially, than I am in having them be open about what decisions they're
> making and how. If a more formal steering committee and a more
> representative set of participants needs to be invented, it seems
> reasonable to expect we'll be able to tell and we'll be able to come up
> with additional structure that might be needed.
> > best,
> > Suzanne
> > Suzanne Woolf
> > (just another techie, speaking for myself alone)
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss