Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re

[Jeanette Hofmann]

On 20 May 2003 at 10:28, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 
> Hi Jeannette,
> 
> At 04:26 PM 5/20/2003 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > > I'd like to try to get to the core issue that is motivating
> > > this (and other) alternative proposal(s) -- some people (I'm
> > > not sure how many) don't trust the existing IESG, and Harald
> > > in particular, to run this process.
> >
> >Now, you make it sound as if those who prefer a newly appointed AD do
> >distrust Harald. This is certainly not the case as far as I am concerned. On
> >the contrary. My point is that the chances of success of a reform process
> >might decrease if the process is led by an authority structure that is 
> >obviously
> >part of the problem.
> 
> Thanks for making this point.  This is what I meant by trying
> to get to the core issue that is motivating this discussion...
> 
> I am not sure that I agree with your point, though.  I guess it
> depends on your definition of "reform".  Most of my experience
> regarding intentional change within organizations has been in
> corporate environments where change and reorganization is typically
> lead by the existing management.  And, in many cases, this is
> quite successful.

Margaret, you are right. Yet, many companies hire consultants to get input 
from a not affected, third party. (Whether that is a good way to get neutral 
input is a different question.)


> 
> > > > I think that we need to determine where the consensus of
> > > the community lies on this issue.  I believe that the
> > > vast majority of us _do_ trust our current leadership.
> >
> >Again, I don't think that personal distrust is the main issue here. It is 
> >about
> >creating sound preconditions for the reform process.
> 
> What leads you to believe that having a "neutral" person oversee
> the process is necessary to create a sound precondition for the
> reform process?

By neutral I mean unbiased and open with regard to the solution space. I 
don't want to sound trivial, are you expecting a more thorough explanation?

Jeanette
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
>