[governance] Debunking eight myths about multi-stakeholderism

[Barry Shein]

inline...

On May 1, 2015 at 08:41 kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) wrote:
 > And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is
 > enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who
 > is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more
 > equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have
 > clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent
 > challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more
 > other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS
 > setting turning into a club is palpable.

Thank you. Yes, that is exactly my concern also. Hence some desire
formalize enfranchisement, a long haul no doubt.

 > On Apr 29, 2015 6:04 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to
 > > some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent
 > > approval process.
 > 
 > Right! It has been my impression MS-ism tends to be skeptical about voting
 > per se and tends to prefer consensus processes not formally based on a
 > proper voting as known so far in demonstratic processes. One may understand
 > why, although one may or may not agree. Such voting requires well defined
 > boundaries ahead of time - the boundaries of the polity, of the
 > enfranchised, so far all individuals notwithstanding the opinion of the
 > current US Supreme Court - meaning those boundaries are closed at least at
 > some point. Once those boundaries are defined and implemented, it is a 'one
 > person one vote' business, which MS-ism does not find all that friendly.
 > 
 > Or am I mistaken in my reading?

Mostly addressing [1] below: Consensus works in technical contexts
because the issues can usually be reduced to more objective measures,
or even reduced to no real difference in value: Shall we put a 4 or a
5 in each packet to indicate this protocol version?

I do understand that even such minor issues can become very
contentious particularly when vendors may have such large monied
interests in seemingly "Endian" differences:

  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/endian

When resources are at stake consensus may not be an option.

 > /Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent
 > 
 > [1] Please set aside cases such as IETF. We are discussing broader policies
 > which may impact potentially everyone and in which potentially anyone could
 > be involved, not just processes whereby technical artifacts are designed or
 > modified, issues requiring specialized knowledge which cannot be acquired
 > in a day or two of preparation by any (basicly) literate individual.
 > <p dir="ltr">And in addition to the question about who is a stakeholder - who is enfranchisable and do they get enfranchised? - there is the question of who is listened to? Are the stakeholders equally listened to or are some "more equally" listened to than others? [1] In my experience, assuming we have clear answers to Barry's great questions, this remains a persistent challenge in MS processes where people consistently tend to listen more other people they are culturally acquainted with. At times the risk of a MS setting turning into a club is palpable.</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">On Apr 29, 2015 6:04 PM, "Barry Shein" <<a href="mailto:bzs at world.std.com">bzs at world.std.com</a>> wrote:<br>
 > ><br>
 > > Or by whatever the process for approving decisions is, voting is to<br>
 > > some extent a metaphor for any reasonably inclusive and transparent<br>
 > > approval process.</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">Right! It has been my impression MS-ism tends to be skeptical about voting per se and tends to prefer consensus processes not formally based on a proper voting as known so far in demonstratic processes. One may understand why, although one may or may not agree. Such voting requires well defined boundaries ahead of time - the boundaries of the polity, of the enfranchised, so far all individuals notwithstanding the opinion of the current US Supreme Court - meaning those boundaries are closed at least at some point. Once those boundaries are defined and implemented, it is a 'one person one vote' business, which MS-ism does not find all that friendly.</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">Or am I mistaken in my reading?</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">/Brought to you by Mawaki's droid agent</p>
 > <p dir="ltr">[1] Please set aside cases such as IETF. We are discussing broader policies which may impact potentially everyone and in which potentially anyone could be involved, not just processes whereby technical artifacts are designed or modified, issues requiring specialized knowledge which cannot be acquired in a day or two of preparation by any (basicly) literate individual.<br>
 > </p>

   -b

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