Re: [Membership] The real reason language is not the issue

[Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

Diane Cabell wrote:

> I don't understand the nature of this "nuclear"
> role you are proposing for IFWP.  Could you explain it?

In one sense, it is increasingly a non issue.  If you decide upon
an open membership, the IFWP participants can and will migrate to
it.  HOWEVER, there is value in the invented wheel.  We are not
hypothetical. We do not have to speculate on our characteristics. 
We are assembled. Our profile is ascertainable, now.  We have met
each other, reached consensus on basic issues (which will guide
our process in resolving the details) and know that we can work
together.  We have credibility with ourselves and the larger
community.  

I simply ask why we would want to redo this effort.  Why not try
something new--build on our history instead of throwing it away? 
Why not use this solid foundation?  Why risk the almost certain
war which will accompany some new definition of our membership
when we have a familiar and comfortable association, already? 
What new value would this bring to the table?  What old
accomplishment might be abandoned?