Re: [Membership] Is the fishbowl transparent enough?

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 19:10 6/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
>> Comment:  It would be good to know who are the members in favour of an open
>> Singapore meeting and who against.
>> This is not about the validity of the argument, but simply a desire to see
>> a voting track record of each committee member.    *That's* a fishbowl.
>
>It would be if you needed to know this in order to decide whether or not to
>re-elect this person to the office.  But this is not an elective office,
so I'm
>not sure why you need to know who is voting for what.  This question implies
>that you would target individuals in some way. That makes me a little
>uncomfortable, because this is not a place for lobbying efforts.  This is a
>place to know what the issue is and what the options are.  Who supports it
>seems irrelevant at the MAC level.
>
Diane,  You are right. 
However, knowing a member's voting record on diverse issues may make it
easier to understand the whole philosophy of the position.

>The real reason Molly's notes read that way, though, is because several of us
>often start talking at once and she can't tell whose voice is saying what.
>After all, you can't raise your hand in a teleconference.  She's made a
>judgment call that it's more important to get the issue recorded than to stop
>the teleconference discussion to ask everyone to repeat their statement. I
>agree.
>
This goes to show that the quality of email discussion can be higher and is
definitely more transparant than teleconferences.
What do the members  think of my proposal for a "read only" list?

--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html