Re: [Membership] Missing the point to hit a straw man?

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eric, Elliot and all,

Eric Weisberg wrote:

> Elliot Nesterman wrote:
>
>         Eric Weisberg wrote:
>
>      > No.  We want democratic voting reflecting the will of diverse
>      > minorities.  The resulting board will reflect the will of the majority.
>
>      I always wonder, in these discussions, how small a minority needs
>      to be before it loses its credibility when claiming oppression by the
>      majority.

  Good point Eric.  We [INEGroup] agree, as do I.  I believe that possibly
that Elliot is a bit confused here, or at least I hope he is.  The board should
protect the minority, not the majority.  At any rate the Membership should
reflect the majority interest, and at the same time keep in mind the
concerns and needs of the minority.  In addition the membership, not
the Board should, by majority vote, be making the final decisions on any
policies that may be under consideration, as the White Paper Requires,
as they are the stakeholders.

>
>
> I do not understand how your comment relates to my point.  I was not
> claiming "oppression," so the "credibility" of such claims can't be at issue.  Nor, am I complaining about the "majority."  Rather, I was
> discussing how to form it.

  Well said, and completely correct Eric.

>
>
> However, I should have referred to "interests" rather than "minorities" in my
> post.
>
> >         With only 9 members to elect it may be difficult to get a
> >         director for each interest.
>
> So, you support maximizing the number of interests
> which may be represented by the 9 at large directors?
>
> >         And some of those, arguably minority, interests
> >         can be very vocal (Thinly veiled reference ;-)).
>
> Thinly veiled, but still obtuse.  I am not sure of your reference
> nor your point.  Are you saying that:
>
> *I am complaining of oppression,
> *am part of an extremely vocal minority, and
> *that "being vocal" (giving voice to one's thoughts) is inappropriate?
>
> If I have correctly deduced your meaning, what is the proper response?
>
> Frankly, I doubt I am in a minority regarding the very limited issues about which I speak.  Since the values I espouse are fairness for all
> and
> protection from capture (and consequential "oppression?") by the few,
> I can't be too far out of the main stream in my objectives.   We can examine how I would accomplish those objectives in other posts.  And, I
> will appreciate your comments, particularly if critical.
>
> To the extent you imply that "vocal minorities" (or individuals) are
> inappropriate, I suggest you are skating on thin ice and should
> limit your comments to the merits of my (and other posters')
> positions.  Ad homonym remarks should be avoided.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208