[governance] Ad hoc Best Bits strategy meeting tomorrow lunchtime

[Mawaki Chango]

McTim,

Thanks for the clarification. I may have made an error, but I did not
"decide" to do so. Since the segment we're discussing was the very first
lines of your response to a message, inserted after the very first
paragraph of the latter, and you kept the whole paragraph in place and in
block, then my mis-reading becomes very likely. The only two ways I see
which would have avoided any ambiguity are i) that you cut out the first
section of the paragraph that was not concerned by your response which
followed (since you didn't have any earlier response to insert between that
first section and the latter part of the para.) or ii) that there is an
objective, material impossibility for the reader to associate the meaning
of your response to the whole paragraph, including the first part of it.
Short of both, my reading becomes quite plausible. Otherwise...

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.

Of course this is a good thing as long as the coalition is truly
multistakeholder (which is key here), isn't that what all our efforts have
been about? I did not think one second that Jeremy was complaining about
that (again, assuming full MS-ism is granted), or would object to that
--isn't that obvious? That's, for instance, something I wouldn't find
enough time during the day to question, but then again I may be wrong since
it's never wise to believe 100 percent that one can speak for somebody
else. As I understood it, the whole para. was intended to summarily
compensate for the reporting which J. started the para. saying he hadn't
have a chance to do --that's particularly and literally the case for the
latter half, the first one being a more personal assessment of the dynamic
at the meeting. So I guess this whole sub-thread is just about the way we
read and write stuff... that's why I'm always open to people, including
myself, clarifying what they mean. At this point though, I think we have
enough clarity as to where the misunderstanding came from which led us
here, so I rest my case.

Cheers,
mawaki


On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:50 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131025/49d4e501/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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