[governance] remote paticipation via standardized protocols (was Re: Open consultations)

[Norbert Bollow]

Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> >In my understanding, that was an assertion that it "works" under
> >"Windows", "Apple" and "Linux",
> 
> Versions are available for all three.

Well the "Linux" version didn't work for me.

> >which is at odds with my experience with a very typical set-up of the 
> >latter.
> 
> One of the problems with *nix is that its advantages are traded off 
> against what seems to me to be a much restricted degree of "plug and 
> play". Not surprising given the almost infinite combinations available.

The path to solve this kind of problems is standardization.

Why do you oppose that?

> >Maybe I should also mention that assertions that the "solution" "works
> >now" and "we should embrace it" are rather unfriendly things to say to
> >someone who was just locked out from being able to participate because
> >what "works now" doesn't for everyone and even the fall-back option of
> >live transcripts + email isn't made avalable, presumably as a result
> >of a mistaken belief that the Abobe "solution" works for everyone?
> 
> Email was available

I find your repeated assertions to the contrary of my experience very
frustrating.

> (although I didn't see any evidence that it was used 
> by anyone)

As I wrote, my timely and appropriate attempt to communicate by email
was ignored.

> >(Yesterday the "live transcript" was working but a timely intervention
> >that I submitted by email got ignored, probably because nobody was
> >watching the email address that had been provided, and today the "live
> >transcript" links just give the message "Event is not active".)
> 
> There's a new link for each session, and I did notice that this 
> afternoon's link was erroneously pointing at the morning session.
> 
> eg: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGam&chat=no
> vs: http://www.streamtext.net/text.aspx?event=MAGpm&chat=no

During the morning session, the morning session link also didn't
work.

> That's a webmastering/editing issue

and a "lack of testing / double-checking" issue.

> not a technology one!

Agreed. But why didn't anyone (with the power to get issues fixed)
check that the links work?

Wouldn't chances be that it'd be checked have been better if there had
been awareness that the Adobe "solution" doesn't work for everyone?

>> Isn't the kind of violence which is present here precisely the
>> refusal of fairness with regard to openness of interfaces?
>
> The fairest thing to do is deploy a solution that's instantly available 
> to the largest number of users. It would be even more unfair to deny 
> that to them. Fairness is not ensuring that everyone is equally poorly 
> serviced.

I'm not asking for downgrading of service for anyone.

But I'm asking you to stop pretending that the problems which I'm
pointing out don't exits or are irrelevant to internet governance.

Greetings, Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t