PAB Re: Consensus

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Jul 03, 1998 at 10:43:44PM -0500, Mikki Barry wrote:
> Kent Crispin said:
> 
> > Doesn't make any difference at all to my interpretation.  The
> > conclusion of your statement is that non-participants in the IFWP
> > process are not stakeholders.  That is clearly invalid, and on its face
> > it amounts to a power grab on the part of the "IFWP process".
> 
> Quick question:  How can a process that attempts to include everyone in the
> world who wishes to be included, regardless of whether their participation is
> electronic or physical, possibly be a "power grab?"

Very simple.  One can know in advance that the attempt won't succeed.

> > To put it another way, the "IFWP process" has anointed itself as the
> > sole representative of stakeholders in the new organization.
> 
> I never heard that said.

I didn't hear it said, either -- I was just quoting the report on 
Ellen Rony's site, as the consensus item 2 of group B:

    2.  As a whole, the IFWP participants should act as the principle
    incorporators of the new organization.  In other words, we can be
    considered to be the stakeholders.

Jay agreed with this summary, but said he interpreted it differently.

Another quote from Ellen's page (from one of David Schutt's reports):

    Last thing, now is the time to participate if you wish to
    influence events!

I've been participating for two years now.  The MoU has well over 200 
signatories who, by signing, indicated their support for a certain 
process -- some 4 times as many as participated in the GIAW 
conference. [Incidentally, I note with some amusement that INEG, INC, 
Jeff Williams imaginary company, is listed as a participant.  Did "Jeff" 
show up?  Or some other representative of "INEG, INC"?]  

So I guess I do take a bit of umbrage at the statement that the IFWP
participants should act as the "principle incorporators" of the new
organization. 

> In fact, there were multiple people saying that the
> IFWP would be a PART of the process, and that others were encouraged to offer
> their solutions so that we can all come to consensus. 

Good.  I am delighted that you agree that the IFWP is just a part of
the process.  I have no problem whatsoever with that, and in fact I 
encourage it.  And if that really is the prevailing sentiment I'm 
sure my concerns can be addressed.

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html