[governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished?

[Avri Doria]

On 11 Jun 2013, at 07:00, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> Notably, it is not apolitical.  Therefore we shouldn't have to start at square 1 whenever it comes to agreeing on a position that advances the public interest; we can begin by ruling out all the positions that conflict with the Vision, and dismissing them when they hold up consensus.


All well and good, but we need to agree of what constitutes the public interest.  And it has become apparent that we often do not.

We used to agree on some things, like a multi-stakehoder approach, but over the years, even support for that has splintered.  I find that discussions on this list, for all their obfuscating venom are indeed about the search for the point of public interest.  And we are fundamentally split on that.

Some have gone so far as to argue that they hold the key to the public interest because they are A, B or C, and those who disagree with them are T&A infidels who sold out to corporate interests.  Someday we may get beyond this episode. In the meantime I expect the impasse will continue.

avri


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

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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