SUO: Re: What Does It Mean To Cheat The Process?
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Matthew,
Please refer to my previous remarks about not being a dummy.
Please limit the number of insults to my intelligence that
you initiate or merely pass on from others to =< 5 per diem.
Gratulatio In Futulio,
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
>
> 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
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o