SUO: RE: What Does It Mean To Cheat The Process?
Dear Jon,
See comments below.
Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@att.net]
> Sent: 07 December 2003 11:03
> To: SUO; West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE
> Cc: Robert Spillers
> Subject: Re: What Does It Mean To Cheat The Process?
>
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Matthew,
>
> I you have the least shred of respect for democractic process left,
> and desire any legitimacy for the Procedure Project that you lead,
> I suggest that you ignore Jim's ill-considered and illegitimate
> actions toward moving the discussion of the Procedure Document
> to the P&P subgroup. No provision of this type or effect was
> a part of the Procedure Project motion that we discussed at
> great length, voted on, and approved. Nor has there been
> any discussion, much less a vote on Jim's proposal.
MW: I don't see what moving to the Policy and Procedures list
has to do with democracy. It is purely pragmatic. You can get more
done in many smaller groups reporting back to a plenary, than
working everything in plenary. It also means that more people have
the opportunity to contribute in the areas they feel are most
important to them.
MW: Any proposal will have to come back to the main group for
approval or discussion of contentious and minority positions
anyway.
>
> I voted against the initial motion, but you eloquently
> and repeatedly assured us of your good intentions to
> prevent this very sort of illegitimate action from
> occurring again, as it has so often in he past,
> due largely to the unrelentingly high-handed
> actions of the present Chair.
MW: The intention of the procedures document was to give us
a visible way to see whether deliverables were being developed
in an open way, i.e. reponsive to valid criticism. This is a
results oriented approach that does not require everything to be
discussed in plenary.
>
> It was nothing but these repeated declarations and
> my initial impression of your personal good sense
> that led me eventually to vote for the measure.
> I still believe that you have good intentions
> at heart, but I am sad to find that you are
> so easily misled by the admittedly coercive
> and under-handed practices of Jim Schoening.
MW: Moving to a dedicated list is in my opinion only
inappropriate if there is no archive for it. I have made this point
in another post.
>
> The P&P subgroup has no legitimacy here.
> I will ignore whatever comes out of it.
MW: The smart thing is to be part of it and ensure the proposals
support what you are trying to achieve (not that I am all that clear
what that is).
>
> Please return to the fold of democratic procedure
> and due process in the Main SUO Discussion Group
> or lose all claim of respect for the Procedure
> project that you lead.
MW: How do you deduce that only discussion on the Main SUO list
can possibly be part of a democratic process?
MW: Well I make that my 5 for today, and I will try to take my own
medicine.
>
> Jon Awbrey