[governance] individuals

[Gurstein, Michael]

Vittorio and all those who have made similar points.

I don't think that the fact that participants in this enterprise are
volunteers relieves them of the responsibilities attendant on
participation in this enterprise. 

It may make fulfilling those responsibilities more difficulty and thus
reduce the numbers of those able to fully participate (and thus gain the
"benefits" of participation) but otherwise I don't see why or how it
changes the requirement for CS to act in a manner consistent with CS if
one is going to claim to be (or following your point), accept to be
recognized as speaking on behalf of CS.

I'm a (voluntary) parent -- with that role goes a variety of
responsibilities -- some I'm "into" and find enjoyable and consistent
with my other skills and interests and others not so.  I became a parent
for a complex nest of reasons but in large part because I considered
doing so overall of benefit.  The fact that my initial decision was
voluntary doesn't relieve me of having to execute the various
responsibilities attendant on that decision whether or not I happen to
be "into them" or wish at any particular moment to "put time and
commitment into it"...

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
Sent: April 27, 2006 11:30 AM
To: Gurstein, Michael
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] individuals


Gurstein, Michael ha scritto:
> Danny's most recent note)... I have seen very little evidence of THE
> CS-IGC acting like a "network" i.e. making active linkages with like 
> minded "nodes", working towards inclusive consensus, actively seeking 
> to extend the network particularly to fill in gaps and to broaden the 
> network's reach.

This is absolutely important, but you should not overestimate the actual

capabilities of a group like this one, populated by volunteer people who

all do ten or twenty other things, to do regular outreach activities in 
the long term. I would already be quite happy if we had procedures in 
place to encourage newcomers and ensure that their opinion isn't 
overlooked only because they're new.

> Again I think it should be said that those who wish to claim the
> mantle of THE CS-IGC

Beware of the subtle risk of this or any other group *not* claiming that

openly, but actually being recognized de facto in that role. That's much

worse, since you don't get the public discussion and agreement on 
"rights and duties" of "the" civil society forum - you only get a group 
with rights but no established duties.

> also must accept responsibility for ensuring
> that the IGC operates in a way which is reflective of the modes of
> operation and "values" of CS, so it isn't sufficient to say to folks 
> such as myself or others, well if you think it needs to be done then 
> you should do it, since I have no interest personal or institutional 
> in presenting myself as THE CS standard bearer in the IG area.

Sure, but you can't expect people who are not into those matters to be 
able to push them, even if they wish. While you are absolutely right in 
asking that any representative of civil society commits to understanding

and pushing everyone's points and not just his/her personal ones, and 
also in asking for support to bridge lack of opportunities and resources

among different parts of civil society, there is no alternative to 
people who care about a certain matter actually putting their time and 
commitment on it.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance