[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

[McTim]

Mawaki,

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
>
> Bill, are you saying that the "I* orgs" never had one single meeting about
> this without CS being involved?

I would say they have not, as I consider them to be part of CS, but I
know that i am in the minority on that one.

And you know that for certain?
> I'd hate to make Jeremy look bad just because he's proposed a CS meeting
> "intra muros" to devise a strategy. But I'd agree that once we get past the
> initial clearing and gauging of the field, we too should have joint meetings
> with any stakeholders "who favor MS processes even if they have different
> ideas of the desirable end states" to use your words. But frankly, you sound
> like it's EITHER (coordination with I* orgs) OR (direct "relationship to the
> Brazil meeting"), with a hint that the former is the most desirable and the
> latter the least. Is my reading correct? Why can't we do both, especially if
> there remain issues on which the objectives of CS and those of I* orgs are
> not fully aligned?
>
> And should we understand something of your use of the term "Brazil meeting"
> as opposed to "summit"? Not that I have any fetishism with summits :-) but
> since Jeremy also mention that change in terminology, I thought I would ask.
>
>>
>>
>> @Mawaki, I never said I was "anti-governmentalist".  Nor did I say the
>> "technical community" should take over from governments.
>
>
> McTim, I might surprise you but of course you never said that. I know. But
> what you wrote was a direct reaction/response to what Jeremy wrote in the
> first paragraph of his email. I just contend that there is no way one can
> fully and accurately understand what you wrote in abstraction, without
> linking it to what you were responding to. And once one does that, there are
> direct implications to what you're saying even if you didn't voice them
> literally. That's also part of the complexity of conversations involving 3
> or more pragmatic (in the linguistic sense) standpoints. If you didn't
> question Jeremy's take on the dynamic of what went on in that meeting and
> just asked him whether CS shouldn't be happy about it, then I'll have to
> start from the same place, i.e. granting his rendition is accurate, in my
> response to your question.

I see your error.  You have decided incorrectly, that I reacted to
Jeremy's' take on what went on in the meeting, when in fact, I reacted
to the second half of the para:

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that
> took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing
> power-grab in progress - they are forming a new coalition that will create a
> "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the
> primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric"
> models.

It is here that I asked why that was a bad thing referring to the
grass-roots coalition/primacy of the MS model.

If I had been reacting to the first bit (which seemed to be
flame-bait, and thus best avoided), it would have looked like this:

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> I haven't had a chance to write about the technical community meeting that
> took place at lunchtime today, but it felt (to me) like an astonishing
> power-grab in progress

<insert reaction here>

 - they are forming a new coalition that will create a
> "grassroots" campaign, with the pre-determined objective of reasserting the
> primacy of "the" multi-stakeholder model against "government-centric"
> models.


 And if his rendition is accurate, then such state
> of affairs has implications that you did not need to state explicitly. By
> asking us shouldn't we be happy with that, you are indicating that you
> agreed with such state of affairs.

See above.  None of us can possibly find enough time during the day to
explicitly state all of our disagreements with what others write on
this list.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- 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