[governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 20 févr. 08 à 21:49, William Drake a écrit :

>
> On 2/20/08 8:32 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>
>>> completely irrelevant - I would myself count for gov. As a civil
>> servant (academic working in a public research institute), I get my
>> paycheck from the government. So what? I'm not even discussing on
>> this list - nor have I spent almost 5 years chairing a WSIS CS caucus
>> - in my professional capacity, but rather as part of my volunteering
>> activity representing a (not funded, and explicitely refusing funding
>> -- this is to answer in advance Suresh's general concerns on this
>> issue, which I share) NGO or sometimes in informal discussions as an
>> individual. The issue is not who pays your salary. But who funds you
>> to explicitely represent it.
>
> So then people shape shift back and forth between categories when they
> consult etc?

I always inform the audience of my position when speaking. It's the  
least minimum intellectual honesty, so people understand where you're  
standing from and take this into account as part of the context.  
Well, if someone has 10 hats, it's becoming rather complex. But the  
companies/organizations for which s/he consults hopefully will soon  
understand the situation, and prefer sending another *representative*.

>> accepting that some CS MAG members nominated by the IGC are only
>> individuals, not representing any organization? This reasoning is not
>> sound. Moreover, you're analyzing long term political
>
> Ok, add up the numbers, people in orgs in which mAG reps work and  
> see how
> much better we come out.
>
>> reconfigurations in simplistic tactic terms. This doesn't mean
>> anything. If it was only a question of simple tactics, then ISOC
>
> Now you're just being unpleasant, why?

As I just mentioned in answering Adam's mail, well, I can also ask  
the same question. In any case, this was not my intention, and I  
apologize if what I said about the analysis appeared unpleasant to you.

> I simply pointed out the practical
> implications of what you're saying for those who actually  
> participate in IGF
> meetings.  There might be a case on conceptual grounds (although  
> it's not
> clear yet) but it has some practical implications worth being clear  
> about.

No, I still don't agree with you on this, because the analysis is  
biased, as I tried to explain.

>> would have stuffed this caucus list with ISOC-friendly people and
>
> Why should they bother, we're completely capable of self- 
> destructing, as
> this extended and unproductive discussion is demonstrating.

I could make exactly the same comment. And, actually, I do. And we  
haven't achieved anything.

>> they would have been set. Don't you understand that real stakes are
>> elsewhere, and not only for ISOC? Most notably in official and long
>
> Actually I do, part of why I think this whole thing has been such an
> ill-considered black hole.

At least we agree on what's at stake. But I may have missed your  
tentative to address this. How should we have proceeded, according to  
you?

> Ok, whatever.  So are we done, please?

You are done.

> Maybe we could talk about things
> people might agree on, as I suggested last week?  IGF format, main  
> sessions,
> that sort of thing?

yes, yes, I already know: "CS needs better representation", full  
stop. etc. For sure, we might agree on this. Far beyond this caucus.  
I'm wondering (actually since right after WSIS, you may get back to  
the archives), why we go on calling this list a caucus.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance