[NCSG-Discuss] A Question

[Avri Doria]

cheers

avri

On 11 Feb 2013, at 00:03, Edward Morris wrote:

> 
> Thanks for clarifying that Avri. 
> 
> I assume this was informal? 

There was not vote on the issue if that is what you mean by formal.

> 
> One of the best parts of transparency is everyone knows who made what decision. That way displeasure or approval are directed at the proper parties.
> 

It was done on the NCSG-PC list, which has an open archive <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/> which everyone in the world is free to peruse any time they wish.


> At NCUC we now know we can't count on the stability of our confluence presence should our NCSG colleagues have a change of heart. As such, we can act appropriately in redesigning our web presence. 
> 

As far as i know, the NCUC has chosen NOT to use the confluence wiki, whereas NCSG has, and it looks like NPOC has as well.

Other then making any references to the NCUC that are appropriate, I see NO connection between the NCSG wiki and the NCUC wiki.

Certainly I think it will be useful to track any statements that might come out of the NCUC or NPOC on the NCSG wiki and thus have attempted to take that into the account in the tables I am proposing for tracking the NCSG-PC's work.

But the NCUC should feel free to do whatever it pleases in terms of establishing its own wiki.  I do not see why NCSG wiki decisions have any bearing on that at all.

Also in terms of transparency, I think saying "look, look, what I have done" covers that at least to some extent.  As for accountability, the NCUC-EC that appointed me to the NCSG-PC, can withdraw my appointment anytime it is displeased.  I think that is how accountability in the NCSG works: you fire the bums. As one of the NCUC Executives, it is in your power to initiate that process should you feel I have transgressed against transparency or accountability.

BTW, while we are asking questions based on my request for WG participation info, are you participating in Working Groups, the question that started this entire thread?  One of the interesting things some of are discovering is that in the GNSO, in general, we have more people in Constituency and Stakeholder boss roles than we have in Working Groups - sort of an inverse pyramidical notion of bottom-up.  In addition to finding out where NCSG people are working on policy, i.e. the working groups, I am curious as to what the NCSG ratio of bosses:workers is.

thanks

avri